Intro - E Pluribus Unum

Intro - E Pluiribus Unum (Out of many--One)

In the opening portion of his book professor Allan Bloom relays much of his frustration as a teacher first and then tries his hand at dissecting how we have gotten ourselves into this mess. What strikes me is that this book was written in the late 80's and cuts deeper and more painfully than most modern critiques.

Much of the American Experiment and a modern day education is grounded in the idea of E Pluribus Unum. Which can be roughly translated as getting unity out of diversity. The Greeks thought there was an essence which summed up all the other four main essences, a quintessence (where we get our modern word).

Bloom laughs at that groundless idealism now as he states that every university student comes dogmatically assured that all truth is relative and that this knowledge is the only modern virtue (it carries a moral tone in its unequivocality).He prescribes two differing types of "openness" you could even substitute "unity out of diversity" and these serve as really the theme and basis for his work. I will try to expound on these and then hopefully get to his historical critique of how we ended up here.

Type #1- A hollow type of cultural relativism which explicitly denies the content of the information itself but stresses only a diversification of information for the sake of itself. There is no talk of fundamental principles, virtue. etc only a blind trust in progressivism (an accommodation to the present) and "toleration" clothed with apathy about our souls. It stifles our potential as knowers because the things worth knowing are all of equal value since everything is relative.

"Thus what is advertised as a great opening is actually a great closing. No longer is there a hope that there are great wise men in other places and times who can reveal truth about life-- except for the few remaining young people who look for a quick fix from a guru" (p.34)

Type #2- An openness that invites us to the quest for knowledge and certitude, for which history and the various cultures provide a brilliant array of examples for examination. It believes there is a knowable good that exists outside of the self and acknowledges error is possible (instead of stifling potential error like Type #1) but the reward is worth the risk of failing or being perceived as "intolerant"

How we got ourselves into this lovely predicament: Bloom spends much of his time here laying out how he thinks some major shifts have led us here. He starts with our founding Fathers and the type of men that were assumed and produced during that time period. He states

"We began with the model of rational and industrious man, who was honest, respected thee laws, and was dedicated to his family. Above all he was to know the rights doctrine; The Constitution, which embodied it; and American history which presented and celebrated the founding of a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal" (p.27)

So starting with a beautiful blend of Reason and Pragmatism America was birthed and while I think Bloom might be a bit historically optimistic about the state of our citizens i think our ancestors had a much clearer understanding of what he calls "natural" reality. But as a major influx of immigrants and ensuing pluralism came ashore we swung the pendulum from protecting the natural rights of human American citizens to protect practically everyone and everything. Bloom states rather interestingly that the Founders were scared of minorities because they were selfish and sought their interests above the whole of the public good (more like factions), so they instituted a system that would keep them in check rather than ensuring that they had a fair amount of power. Think about it even as I use the words majority and minority we have been so conditioned to think that the worst of all possible evils is to not allow any one's rights to be trampled on. It seems that the Founders would trample on some toes if only to allow the majority to have rights and then institute a system where they could not overturn those rights.

3 Big Places We see the Change
1) Civil War- Bloom claims that the South actually needs to point the finger at itself for devaluing the Constitution and being the first majority of citizens that felt their needs and way of life over-rided the moral livable demands laid out in the Constitution (barring the 3/5ths Compromise the heart of the Const. is that ALL men should have been equal).

2) 60's Sexual Revolution - every type of authority is viewed as a chain needing to be loosed so we turned to the go to the bazaar of cultures and find reinforcement for inclinations that are repressed by puritanical guilt feelings. That's what we were told and we bought it hook line and sinker. Sick.

3) Civil Rights Movement - Here we see the peak of this divide. One one side you have some using the Dec of Ind and Const. to justify their natural rights and others like the Black Panthers saying that inherently they (Const. and Dec of Ind) were set up to keep some subjugated into slavery. Humanness is no longer enough they wanted literally "black power". We are now utterly confused as to what our natural rights are, whether they are derived or given. It's chaos.

Now that is a lot of information and I'm trying my best to synthesize it in a digestible form but i think he has some formidable conclusions in this intro. Where the line between what he thinks and my critique is no longer solid.

1) We now have a shift from principle to the pragmatic. We have had to debunk the past in order to put trust in the future. We serve a brand of liberalism w/o natural rights. And hence we have shifted from content study to diversification of information. We are left with a hollow cultural relativism that tells students their preferences are only an accident of time and location (the new openness Type 1)

2) I think this most appropriately could be called the era of cowardice and laziness. I believe we have a "tolerance" or "indiscriminate attitude" that has been told no such things as the Good exists, so don't waste time pursuing the True, the Real, the Transcendental because everyone is right. Even the bloke who doesn't believe in any of those. I think our Founders would laugh at what we call "tolerance"

I will end with this: Bloom states that even though Catholics and Protestants have had a rough storied history at least they took their beliefs seriously. There was no lax waning apathy about the state of their souls. May we take all of the Good, the Beautiful, and the True deadly seriously. It seems the only place to ground Unity and Diversity is in the Triune God not other cultures and not other gods.