Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was recently taking to someone who was reminiscing about the "swinging sixty's." I was born in the 70s, so have not direct experience of the 60s, but it got me thinking about the prevailing view of the times, or the zeitgeist.
And it also got me comparing and contrasting with the zeitgeist of the current times. So here are my views, and I would like to hear your views on it, particularly if you have lived through both the times.
One note - I do not intend to criticise either time period, nor suggest one is better than the other. I only want to compare them.
The prevailing philosophy of the 60s in western society - maximise pleasure. The western world was transitioning from a highly structured and autocratic way of living, to one that was more individualistic. A large driving force of this was the idea that people should do what they wanted to maximise pleasure, even if frowned on by society previously. If faced with a situation that may be pleasurable or painful, take the gamble and go for it anyway.
The prevailing philosophy of today in western society - minimise psychological trauma. The western society seems to be transitioning towards first focusing on avoiding trauma, and only then trying to maximise pleasure after you are fairly sure that trauma can be avoided. A large driving force of this is that people should avoid things that might cause present or future trauma, even if that means sacrificing on some pleasure. If faced with a situation that may be pleasurable or painful, do not take the gamble.
I think as time goes on people are coming to terms with what they want. I won't speak exclusively about a certain decade, as I believe people are relatively similar if you take into account the circumstances in their lives.
It's definitely a matter of perspective. For example, as you write about the 60s you say the goal is to maximize pleasure.
And for 70s it's to avoid psychological trauma.
But i would argue that it's kind of the same thing from a different perspective. If I want to have pleasure and I do what I want, I may end up with trauma because of my decision.
If I want to have pleasure and I repress myself in order to avoid future possible trauma, I don't really avoid trauma, instead I'm deciding to take on the "lighter" trauma of not getting pleasure. I don't think there's a right or wrong way, but I do think that avoiding trauma that way over extended periods of time can be just as harmful as getting traumatized because of wanting to maximize pleasure.
Either way is ok, so I guess the important thing is to accept that trauma is a part of life and be ok with your decisions. There's no general answer for every situation in life, but mostly I do what makes me happy. Sometimes I don't - and then I either find something else that makes me happy, or I find reasons to be happy with the way things are.
Haha lately there has been a lot of philosophical topics here though:P
The spirit of the 1960s could be summed up in a single word: "liberation."
Black people fighting back against being kept down, women demanding equal rights,
gay people deciding to be "out and proud" instead of hiding. For some, liberation meant
going back to the land, or at least not working a 9-to-5 job of dubious purpose.
For many, it meant resisting the odious war against Vietnam, no matter what the
politicians said.
Naturally, this spirit was accompanied by big cultural changes, notably music.
Rock n' Roll already existed, but reached full flower in the late '60s.
In fact, it's almost impossible to think of the 1960s without thinking of the music.
Sometimes a pattern to an era might not become clear until after the era is over.
But that wasn't so of the 1960s -- the spirit was obvious even while we were still in the 1960s.
In contrast, I don't think the contemporary period can be so easily described.
Perhaps that's the norm.
The spirit of the 1960s could be summed up in a single word: "liberation."
Black people fighting back against being kept down, women demanding equal rights,
gay people deciding to be "out and proud" instead of hiding. For some, liberation meant
going back to the land, or at least not working a 9-to-5 job of dubious purpose.
For many, it meant resisting the odious war against Vietnam, no matter what the
politicians said.
Naturally, this spirit was accompanied by big cultural changes, notably music.
Rock n' Roll already existed, but reached full flower in the late '60s.
In fact, it's almost impossible to think of the 1960s without thinking of the music.
Sometimes a pattern to an era might not become clear until after the era is over.
But that wasn't so of the 1960s -- the spirit was obvious even while we were still in the 1960s.
In contrast, I don't think the contemporary period can be so easily described.
Perhaps that's the norm.
I think the contemporary period can be described as polarized, socially, economically, and politically. Sooner or later something has got to give. I’m hoping for a new movement of cooperation from the so-called silent majority, if it still exists.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
