David Brooks At The New Yorker: ‘Social Animal’

Full essay here.

“Over the past few decades, geneticists, neuroscientists, psychologists, sociologists, economists, and others have made great strides in understanding the inner working of the human mind. Far from being dryly materialistic, their work illuminates the rich underwater world where character is formed and wisdom grows. They are giving us a better grasp of emotions, intuitions, biases, longings, predispositions, character traits, and social bonding, precisely those things about which our culture has least to say. Brain science helps fill the hole left by the atrophy of theology and philosophy.”

Brooks, aside from being termed moderately conservative, is deeply interested in the social sciences, and I think that last sentence in the quotation displays one of the deeper underlying currents at play.  The piece, while thoughtful, seems a bit overdone in places.   Theology is not necessarily in vogue, and I’m not sure what he means by philosophy not filling the hole, other than that he thinks it is not a major influence on the public mind.  Is there a larger move afoot now, away from organized religion, and does it inexorably pull people away from religious morality and toward social liberalism?

Related On This Site:  Repost-From The NY Times: David Brooks On Simon Schama’s New Book-’Mirror On America’

-Leo Strauss argues that this value free hedonism was a from of gentle nihilsim inherent in waves of modernity in Western thought, and we need anchors against it:  Harry Jaffa At The Claremont Institute: ‘Leo Strauss, the Bible, and Political Philosophy’Via An Emailer: Some Criticism Of Leo Strauss?

-Jesse Prinz argues that morals too, have roots in emotions, and argues that evo-psy/cog-sci should get back to British Empiricism, with some Nietzsche thrown in, among other things-More On Jesse Prinz. A Review Of “The Emotional Construction Of Morals” At Notre DameJesse Prinz Discusses “The Emotional Construction Of Morals” On Bloggingheads.Another Note On Jesse Prinz’s “Constructive Sentimentalism”

Natural Law philosophy has another take on individual responsibility, economic liberty and morality: From Bloggingheads: Robert Wright And Robert P George Discuss Natural Law

Roger Scruton At The WSJ: ‘Memo To Hawking: There’s Still Room For God’Franz De Waal At The NY Times 10/17/10: ‘Morals Without God?’

One thought on “David Brooks At The New Yorker: ‘Social Animal’

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s