I’m not going to pass up the chance to torment the aristocracy - especially Damir! My provocation follows-up on his piece “A Lost Sense of Wonder”. Specifically, to challenge the purely aesthetic conception of enchantment - questioning the possibility of a wholly secular notion of sublimity. Damir, what makes “hearing” the meteor meaningful? Specifically, could its weight be generated by an implicit assumption of cosmic purpose, if not a purely religious experience? In other words, it’s enchanting by virtue of grappling or engaging with the infinite - per Samuel’s proddings and other WoC material, such as the podcasts What’s the Meaning of Meaning or Ross on an appropriately religious attitude toward the universe. In sum, Damir, can you have wonder in an accidental world?
Many people moved away from cable TV to streaming video services for better value, choice, control and convenience. But overal cost went up, especially when multiple individual subscriptions are involved. Now it is almost like a cable model again, where you might pay a lot for your overall "streaming package" which includes a lot of content you will never watch or desire in the first place.
The same process might be underway with news media. Many people are moving away from traditional sources, particularly subscribing, which can also get expensive in aggregate. Now it seems that Substack-like offerings present a similar challenge for the consumer of information. A lot of great content on offer from a variety of sources. But, readers are challenged once again to discover what is available, validate it's personal relevance or interest, and absorb significant costs to get their preferred sources of customized content, in the absence of any lower cost, aggregated offers.
A question for Damir - how does your nihilistic/realistic IR philosophy square with the morally charged ways the Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats defended their political/territorial claims in the Yugoslav Wars in the 90s? The Serbs felt that after the massacres in the WW2 any settlement that would leave them a minority in Croatia and Bosnia was unpalatable. The Croats and Bosniaks insisted their countries were theirs to begin with and the Serb claims were really a land grab in the name of Greater Serbia. The West itself joined the fray in the Kosovo War because it felt that after the massacres in Bosnia the Serbs deserved to be punished by losing Kosovo. Clearly in all these cases something like a moral force was operative.
And let me briefly touch on what you imply - if I understood your elusive comments throughout the podcast - was one of the biggest failure of the Western policy in the Balkans: by clinging naively to morality, it failed to see the justice served in Bosnia in particular (I assume you mean by that the fact that Hoolbroke&co stopped, for humanitarian reasons, the Croat-Bosniak alliance from taking Banja Luka in 1995). Is the general idea here that we should distinguish between the morality in a parochial sense (the morality of nation-states shall we say) and the morality more broadly (post-christian, cosmopolitan norms)? And that the former by dint of being stronger, more "real", more operative on the ground, should shape our thinking about how the world actually works? If so, how does that fit with your more tragic view of morality, where you seem to imply that we often - in stark contrast to Shadi, who, as much as I love him, seems perfectly unburdened by such doubts - , if we are well enough informed, cannot in good conscience judge whose cause is more just or just simply (you brought up a couple of times the example of decent Belgraders who are hard against the independence of Kosovo etc)?
Would you be less skeptical of “progress” if it were broken down into its component parts? That is, if trends like less poverty, less racism, longer lifespans, etc, were described as “improvements,” without attaching an optimistic worldview to them, would you say human conditions have improved even if human nature remains rotten?
You've often asserted that all values need to be grounded in some external philosophy i.e. there are no universal values (if I said that correctly, I agree!), and encouraged Shadi to acknowledge that his values are rooted in religion. What are your values rooted in? Do you think we ought to believe in external sources of value? And what evidence would you need to see, personally, to believe in the existence of (a) God?
Damir, I would love for you to flush out more of your thoughts on the nation state and potential for civilizational states in the 21st century. You spoke a bit about this with Bruno Maçáes on your pod and I am thinking of his article here (https://www.noemamag.com/the-attack-of-the-civilization-state/) as well as the response from Shashi Tharoor here (https://www.noemamag.com/civilization-states-are-profoundly-illiberal/). I would be particularly interested in whether or not you think 21st century norms on interstate violence and communal violence in general may be preventing consolidated democracies from flourishing in places like Africa and the Middle East. David Polansky, another pod guest, wrote about our impure beginnings here (https://aeon.co/essays/machiavelli-on-the-problem-of-our-impure-beginnings). Questions on morality, state formation, and how ecclesiastical beliefs shape these seems tailor made for you and Shadi. I would also be interested in whether or not you think the US is a civilizational state masquerading as a nation state or vice versa?
Damir, How would you articulate 'the good life' as you live it and what drew you to this understanding?
I’m not going to pass up the chance to torment the aristocracy - especially Damir! My provocation follows-up on his piece “A Lost Sense of Wonder”. Specifically, to challenge the purely aesthetic conception of enchantment - questioning the possibility of a wholly secular notion of sublimity. Damir, what makes “hearing” the meteor meaningful? Specifically, could its weight be generated by an implicit assumption of cosmic purpose, if not a purely religious experience? In other words, it’s enchanting by virtue of grappling or engaging with the infinite - per Samuel’s proddings and other WoC material, such as the podcasts What’s the Meaning of Meaning or Ross on an appropriately religious attitude toward the universe. In sum, Damir, can you have wonder in an accidental world?
Damir,
Many people moved away from cable TV to streaming video services for better value, choice, control and convenience. But overal cost went up, especially when multiple individual subscriptions are involved. Now it is almost like a cable model again, where you might pay a lot for your overall "streaming package" which includes a lot of content you will never watch or desire in the first place.
The same process might be underway with news media. Many people are moving away from traditional sources, particularly subscribing, which can also get expensive in aggregate. Now it seems that Substack-like offerings present a similar challenge for the consumer of information. A lot of great content on offer from a variety of sources. But, readers are challenged once again to discover what is available, validate it's personal relevance or interest, and absorb significant costs to get their preferred sources of customized content, in the absence of any lower cost, aggregated offers.
Where is this all going?
Dear Damir,
Why are you so nice and sweet even though you claim to be a grumpy nihilist? Why be nice and sweet at all?
Sincerely,
Audrey Horne
lol I’m here for this
I can imagine him saying that he isn't nice and sweet lol
A question for Damir - how does your nihilistic/realistic IR philosophy square with the morally charged ways the Serbs, Bosniaks and Croats defended their political/territorial claims in the Yugoslav Wars in the 90s? The Serbs felt that after the massacres in the WW2 any settlement that would leave them a minority in Croatia and Bosnia was unpalatable. The Croats and Bosniaks insisted their countries were theirs to begin with and the Serb claims were really a land grab in the name of Greater Serbia. The West itself joined the fray in the Kosovo War because it felt that after the massacres in Bosnia the Serbs deserved to be punished by losing Kosovo. Clearly in all these cases something like a moral force was operative.
And let me briefly touch on what you imply - if I understood your elusive comments throughout the podcast - was one of the biggest failure of the Western policy in the Balkans: by clinging naively to morality, it failed to see the justice served in Bosnia in particular (I assume you mean by that the fact that Hoolbroke&co stopped, for humanitarian reasons, the Croat-Bosniak alliance from taking Banja Luka in 1995). Is the general idea here that we should distinguish between the morality in a parochial sense (the morality of nation-states shall we say) and the morality more broadly (post-christian, cosmopolitan norms)? And that the former by dint of being stronger, more "real", more operative on the ground, should shape our thinking about how the world actually works? If so, how does that fit with your more tragic view of morality, where you seem to imply that we often - in stark contrast to Shadi, who, as much as I love him, seems perfectly unburdened by such doubts - , if we are well enough informed, cannot in good conscience judge whose cause is more just or just simply (you brought up a couple of times the example of decent Belgraders who are hard against the independence of Kosovo etc)?
Dear Damir,
Where is this week’s Wisdom of Crowds podcast? Been looking forward to it all week.
Tulip
Did you find it?
Yes. Great episode!!
Would you be less skeptical of “progress” if it were broken down into its component parts? That is, if trends like less poverty, less racism, longer lifespans, etc, were described as “improvements,” without attaching an optimistic worldview to them, would you say human conditions have improved even if human nature remains rotten?
Dear Damir
What makes a work of art or a moment in time beautiful?
Sincerely,
Audrey Horne
You've often asserted that all values need to be grounded in some external philosophy i.e. there are no universal values (if I said that correctly, I agree!), and encouraged Shadi to acknowledge that his values are rooted in religion. What are your values rooted in? Do you think we ought to believe in external sources of value? And what evidence would you need to see, personally, to believe in the existence of (a) God?
Damir, I would love for you to flush out more of your thoughts on the nation state and potential for civilizational states in the 21st century. You spoke a bit about this with Bruno Maçáes on your pod and I am thinking of his article here (https://www.noemamag.com/the-attack-of-the-civilization-state/) as well as the response from Shashi Tharoor here (https://www.noemamag.com/civilization-states-are-profoundly-illiberal/). I would be particularly interested in whether or not you think 21st century norms on interstate violence and communal violence in general may be preventing consolidated democracies from flourishing in places like Africa and the Middle East. David Polansky, another pod guest, wrote about our impure beginnings here (https://aeon.co/essays/machiavelli-on-the-problem-of-our-impure-beginnings). Questions on morality, state formation, and how ecclesiastical beliefs shape these seems tailor made for you and Shadi. I would also be interested in whether or not you think the US is a civilizational state masquerading as a nation state or vice versa?
Dear Damir,
As a self professed grumpy nihilist, what draws you to questions of God or devotion?
I think you would make a model person of faith if you wanted to (compared to Shadi)
Sincerely,
Audrey Horne
it seems that you don’t respect weak secular liberal piety. why don’t you feel the same way about the faithful?