1. I discovered to my chagrin is very exhausting for me. This is surprising, as I finished Heinlein on my laptop, back in 2006.
2. I was reading collection of short stories by Arthur C Clarke. The collection caught me by suprise because of its dark and mostly apocalyptic tones. My repertoire of Clarke is pretty limited (just 2001: A Space Odyssey and its sequels), but I thought he was the more optimistic of big three. Hell he scared me with his poeish touch (though I admit I am easily scared owing to over active imagination, my nerves are still wrought due to disturbed sleep).
3. It is remarkable how neither Asimov nor Clarke foresaw demise of Communism. Though I like science fiction, I have to reluctantly admit that this is a serious flaw of its most famous works. Of course people can argue that it is unfair criticism against sci-fi, but in my opinion it is not, because prediction of evolution of human society and its institutions plays a predominant part in the sci-fi genre. Heinlein ofcourse played the rugged individualist to the hilt, but even he never came close to predicting the future of communism.
4. Preceding observation brings me to an important conclusion. That sci-fi failed to foresee demise of communism was no accident. Indeed it is difficult to realize this now but the end of second world war saw the emergence of consensus in intellectual circles of two things one that conservatism was dead, killed by electoral dominance of new deal coalition on one hand, and the defeat of national identity in the hands of internationalism, result of second world war. Other was permanent ascendancy of liberalism (or new liberalism) which was to be the beacon of hope for future generations. This consensus is best exemplified by following quote.
In the United States at this time liberalism is not only the dominant but even the sole intellectual tradition. For it is the plain fact that nowadays there are no conservative or reactionary ideas in general circulation...the conservative impulse and the reactionary impulse do not...express themselves in ideas but only...in irritable mental gestures which seek to resemble ideas. *
Lionel Trilling (In liberal imagination)
It was in those dark days that disparate elements fought a futile (as seemed at that time) battle.
National Review and its founder
William F. Buckley was part of it, as were
Milton Friedman,
Friedrich Hayek and though fringe (lunatic fringe in my opinion)
Ayn Rand.
Therefore as much as I loathe fanboyish fawning that one witnesses in libertarian circles, the acknowledgment must be given where it is due.
PS. I said this to Sriram, but it applies to everyone, so I thought I will post it here. If any of you want to post on secularism or any other interesting topic and don't feel like posting on your blog (because you don't have one, for instance), you are most welcome to guest blog here.
PPS. I have decided. Being benevolent dictator is no fun. Instead from now on I am the philosophical dictator. Prasannaji
would approve, as
would Plato.