0

It seems to me that for the hippies, humans are inherently good, and also that for them humans should seek to be happy (in a hedonistic way) if not all, at least most of the time.

Is it correct?

By “hippie” is meant: “hippie, also spelled hippy, member, during the 1960s and 1970s, of a countercultural movement that rejected the mores of mainstream American life. The movement originated on college campuses in the United States, although it spread to other countries, including Canada and Britain. The name derived from “hip,” a term applied to the Beats of the 1950s, such as Allen Ginsberg and Jack Kerouac, who were generally considered to be the precursors of hippies.” (Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/topic/hippie)

Starckman
  • 1,254
  • 3
  • 11
  • 2
    What makes you think that "for the hippies, humans are inherently good, and also that for them humans should seek to be happy (in a hedonistic way) if not all, at least most of the time"? Why would such a large group of people be unified in such a narrow belief in the absence of dogma? Isn't it far more likely that they were/are a diverse group possessed of a wide range of attitudes and behaviors? – Futilitarian Feb 19 '23 at 11:54
  • Near as I can tell, hippies were predominantly "reactive" in that they would tell you clearly what they were NOT, but rarely what they did believe. – Boba Fit Feb 19 '23 at 20:52
  • @BobaFit I think your remark is correct and interesting – Starckman Feb 20 '23 at 09:36
  • @BobaFit Still, they have some basic principles. Love, share, living in community, music, spiritualism, maybe more other things – Starckman Feb 20 '23 at 09:40
  • I strongly suggest that you go further back than just the American scene of the 60s – Gordon Feb 22 '23 at 06:48
  • 1
    @Gordon I totally agree – Starckman Feb 22 '23 at 08:00
  • I am going to delete my L-Reform comment since some folks may find it offensive – Gordon Feb 22 '23 at 09:03

2 Answers2

2

Dealing with the first question

It seems to me that for the hippies, humans are inherently good, ...

Is it correct?

On one level this touches on the opposing views of Hobbes vs. Rousseau. Hobbes spoke of "Bellum omnium contra omnes", the war of all against all, while Rousseau said "They were not bound by an idea of common brotherhood and, having no rule but that of force, they believed themselves each other's enemies. This belief was due to their weakness and ignorance. Knowing nothing, they feared everything. They attacked in self-defence." So according to Rousseau their bellicosity is due to ignorance rather than wickedness.

Another dimension is Social Darwinism vs. Mutual Aid. One may reflect, from a European perspective at least, that the relative peace of the second half of the 20th century has been the exception rather than the rule. Prior to that the tribes and states had been more or less constantly at war. This can be attributed to basic territoriality and domination, and a duelling culture, deliberately looking for a fight: Tribes that fight toughen themselves up. After World War I Freud coined the instinct for this Todestrieb the death drive, the dark side of Nietzsche's Will to Power.

Meanwhile Peter Kropotkin 1842-1921 announced his observations of Mutual Aid — mutually-beneficial cooperation and reciprocity. The reality of Mutual Aid was vigorously contested by dyed-in-the-wool social Darwinists. Mutual Aid conforms with the leftist, hippy ideal of social harmony. However, in realpolitik, the peace-loving tribes of Pacific islands were easy meat for the Spanish conquistadores, so social harmony is evidently not the sole ingredient for social sustainablity.

Hippy love and peace definitely leans to the leftist ideas of Mutual Aid.

... also that for them humans should seek to be happy (in a hedonistic way) if not all, at least most of the time.

Rather a different question, speaks to Freud's Pleasure Principle Eros, which Derrida combined with the aforementioned death drive as two sides of the same coin: Life Drive. I should mention that Freud also had a Realitätsprinzip — reality principle — a faculty that keeps Eros in check.

Chris Degnen
  • 4,780
  • 1
  • 14
  • 21
  • Thank you for breaking down my question in an articulate and documented way. – Starckman Feb 20 '23 at 11:57
  • So you seem to say that the hippies favor the mutual aid approach rather the social darwinism approach – Starckman Feb 20 '23 at 11:58
  • What about my question concerning whether they are more, as you documented, Rousseauists, rather than Hobbyists? And what about their seeking happiness principle? – Starckman Feb 20 '23 at 12:00
  • Very simplistically speaking, Hobbesian adherents might naïvely think the state of nature is wicked. Aggressive social Darwinists might well identify with that. However, Rousseau showed the state of nature is not wicked, and Kropotkin showed that there is cooperation as well as struggle, both undermining the warlords' bellic ethos. After WWII a better, happier way was sought. The hippy era arose out of that time, but barely made it to 1970. Pleasure and idealism, as ever, tempered by reality. – Chris Degnen Feb 20 '23 at 12:43
  • Ok, may I ask what are the sources concerning the views that hippies indeed sought happiness and had a rousseauit approach on human nature, since this is the main part of my question – Starckman Feb 20 '23 at 12:50
  • 1
    Here is one source: [Rousseau and the hippies](https://www.researchgate.net/publication/293080303_Rousseau_and_the_hippies). Your Google is as good as mine on this though. – Chris Degnen Feb 20 '23 at 13:13
  • 1
    [Hippies, Eco-activists & Sixties Culture in Relation to the Romantic Tradition & The History of Ideas](http://rousseaustudies.free.fr/Rousseau%20et%20les%20hippies.htm) – Chris Degnen Feb 20 '23 at 13:17
  • The link between Rousseau and the hippies is complicated. But the one between the hippie and the American Transcendatalists is straightforward. According to the transcendatalism, on which is significantly based the hippie philosophy, humans are naturally good. – Starckman Mar 15 '23 at 04:50
  • "Transcendentalism is a philosophical movement that developed in the late 1820s and 1830s in the New England region of the United States.[1][2][3] A core belief is in the inherent goodness of people and nature,[1] and while society and its institutions have corrupted the purity of the individual, people are at their best when truly "self-reliant" and independent." https://iep.utm.edu/american-philosophy/ – Starckman Mar 15 '23 at 04:51
  • Of course, those ideas are also Roussean. But I am not sure the transcendatalists had read Rousseau. – Starckman Mar 15 '23 at 04:51
  • Thomas Altizer gave an interesting account in 'Godhead & The Nothing', with reference to Hegel. Altizer sketches human development: early years are innocent; then with immature ego there is an element of selfishness, until in maturity there is ideal socialisation. If there is no maturity (either by epiphany or gradually) then the individual may remain in selfishness, which in the extreme, Hegel defines as evil - see [Science of Logic § 356](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/hl/hl170.htm). Humans may aim generally or constitutionally for the good ideal, but not guaranteed. – Chris Degnen Mar 15 '23 at 12:56
  • The ultimate result of Hegel's system imagines an ideally socialised world. One could critically suggest that perpetual resource struggles between societies make Hegel's system a pipe dream and that humans are both good and bad, love and fight, Eros & Thanatos (Pleasure Principle and Death Drive). Hegel would reply that the world system is still developing and hasn't reached its perfect state. But maybe humans would still fight even without resource limits, just to toughen up and hone the species. For what it's worth, Trekonomics is an example of an ideal in a world with unlimited resources. – Chris Degnen Mar 15 '23 at 13:21
  • What is the relationship with the hippies? – Starckman Mar 15 '23 at 14:15
  • I think hippies would generally subscribe to Hegel's vision of perfect, rational, peaceful, highly developed society. The question is, is this naïve? Perhaps there elements of society that will rationalise aggression anyway, and then have to be resisted, or no more hippies. – Chris Degnen Mar 15 '23 at 14:53
-2

You are incorrect.

The hippie movement may seem pretty straight forward on the surface, but it is actually very complicated. It is more than just a bunch of unemployed youngsters smoking dope and listening to groovy jams outdoors. I will give a historical answer, philosophy is not relevant here.

There is a conspiracy behind it. The term 'conspiracy theory' itself was coined in the 70s by the C 1 A to discredit people who asked deep historical questions.

Hippie movement was artificially created to disarm the young generation, to take away it's revolutionary potential. If you look at the french revolution, most key figures were young people. The elites wanted to 'castrate' the young generation, and they succeeded.

The recipe was made out of 3 ingredients: drugs, sex and rock-n-roll. By sex I mean the 'sexual revolution' of the 60s and promotion of Freudian theories. Rock-n-roll was basically the Beatles, followed by Rolling Stones, and a gazillion other bands. Beatles were a project, and believe it or not, Theodor Adorno wrote all of their music. Drugs were L.S.D and the hippie movement. It had nothing to do with peace, or all people being good, it was an experiment with an evil agenda behind it. During Woodstock concerts where Jimi Hendrix played, huge amounts of LSD were given out for free by undercover agents. Hippies were not subjects, they were objects, just like slaves.

Authors like Kerouak, Ginsburg and Leary were promoted to make youngsters curious about psychedelics and altered conscious states.

There is an amazing 1999 book by Frances Stonor Saunders called "The C 1 A and the Cultural Cold War" that uncovers a lot more regarding this topic.

Also, there is an amazing book called "The end of the future" by Jean Gimpel, it has some fascinating insights on American history of the 60s, it is one of my favourite books ever.

Dennis Kozevnikoff
  • 1,247
  • 2
  • 15
  • Um... The hippie movement was created to disarm the young.... Um... And then there's the fact that the violent crime rate in the US roughly doubled through the 1960s. And nearly doubled again in the 1970s. https://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm As a scheme of disarmament it seems to have been sub-optimal. – Boba Fit Feb 19 '23 at 20:49
  • Well, maybe this story has the advantage to highlight some features of this movement, but beside that, without tangible evidence that the story is true, I don’t really see the point. – Starckman Feb 20 '23 at 04:13