On Highbrowishness
Mr. Lewis has come up quite frequently recently. It turns out that reading one of his books has triggered an entry that I would have posted on Thursday had my poor little gerbil not died.
He refers in his autobiography to a time in his early life as a teenage boy when he began to become prideful in his love for the high classics of literature. He looked down on those who preferred to read sports magazines over Yeats for example.
I pondered this for a while last Wednesday morning on the way to the gym at the same time that I pondered my enjoyment of my leather jacket.
I agree with Lewis that this attitude was prideful and thus wrong.
But it is just as wrong to be prideful that I have never murdered someone while that scum ball over there has -- even though murder is clearly wrong.
So I wonder whether it can be objectively stated that taking enjoyment from "classics" is better than taking enjoyment from a sports magazine.
Two things before I continue to hopefully allay certain dissenting comments (I welcome any dissent as always, but please read these comments first.):
1. Taking pride in the fact that one takes enjoyment in "higher" things is clearly wrong.
2. Taking enjoyment in "higher" things could also be wrong if done in excess just like with any other activity.
But apart from that, it seems to me that certain entertainments can be taken as more lazy and/or more frivolous than others.
I present these as all-else-being-equal arguments:
AEBE, is not spending 5 minutes reading an enjoyable book that has the potential to educate one on life better than spending 5 minutes watching a sports team on TV that really has little importance whatsoever?
I'm sure that someone can come up with a reason against this, but I wonder how common a reason it will be.
Now, I want to emphasize that I have nothing against sports. Sure, they can be entertaining. They can be a way to bring people together in fellowship. They could be a hobby, I suppose. But it seems to me to matter very little in terms of life importance. (I admit that I have little to no interest in sports; to think myself "higher" because of this would be wrong. I am solely stating my personal opinion between these parentheses.)
AEBE, is not reading about politics more important than reading about the latest fashions that Brad Pitt happens to be wearing?
Here, I admit that I frankly like Brad Pitt substantially more than I like politics. I am trying to be fair. But as much as I may hate the methods politicians on both sides of (and atop and under) the fence use, it is the current way that change is accomplished in this country. The future of my country is -- I think -- drastically more affected if I know who to vote for and not what I should wear if I want to look like Brad Pitt.
So do you agree? Can things be said to be objectively less important than other entertainments in life? What standard can be used to judge this?
He refers in his autobiography to a time in his early life as a teenage boy when he began to become prideful in his love for the high classics of literature. He looked down on those who preferred to read sports magazines over Yeats for example.
I pondered this for a while last Wednesday morning on the way to the gym at the same time that I pondered my enjoyment of my leather jacket.
I agree with Lewis that this attitude was prideful and thus wrong.
But it is just as wrong to be prideful that I have never murdered someone while that scum ball over there has -- even though murder is clearly wrong.
So I wonder whether it can be objectively stated that taking enjoyment from "classics" is better than taking enjoyment from a sports magazine.
Two things before I continue to hopefully allay certain dissenting comments (I welcome any dissent as always, but please read these comments first.):
1. Taking pride in the fact that one takes enjoyment in "higher" things is clearly wrong.
2. Taking enjoyment in "higher" things could also be wrong if done in excess just like with any other activity.
But apart from that, it seems to me that certain entertainments can be taken as more lazy and/or more frivolous than others.
I present these as all-else-being-equal arguments:
AEBE, is not spending 5 minutes reading an enjoyable book that has the potential to educate one on life better than spending 5 minutes watching a sports team on TV that really has little importance whatsoever?
I'm sure that someone can come up with a reason against this, but I wonder how common a reason it will be.
Now, I want to emphasize that I have nothing against sports. Sure, they can be entertaining. They can be a way to bring people together in fellowship. They could be a hobby, I suppose. But it seems to me to matter very little in terms of life importance. (I admit that I have little to no interest in sports; to think myself "higher" because of this would be wrong. I am solely stating my personal opinion between these parentheses.)
AEBE, is not reading about politics more important than reading about the latest fashions that Brad Pitt happens to be wearing?
Here, I admit that I frankly like Brad Pitt substantially more than I like politics. I am trying to be fair. But as much as I may hate the methods politicians on both sides of (and atop and under) the fence use, it is the current way that change is accomplished in this country. The future of my country is -- I think -- drastically more affected if I know who to vote for and not what I should wear if I want to look like Brad Pitt.
So do you agree? Can things be said to be objectively less important than other entertainments in life? What standard can be used to judge this?