Depression is internally driven. If one is predisposed to depression- it wouldn't matter if he did find paradise- he still would have been unable to cope and the results would have been the same.

But the economic problems followed the fundamental changes in people's attitudes towards basic matters such as marriage and personal morality. Not the other way around.

No, it's the other way around. Economic changes result in changed morality.

Rome's problem was over-expansion. Their strategy was conquest, and it worked for awhile. Their farmer-soldiers could farm most of the time, and go to war occasionally. But as the empire got bigger, that became impossible. Soldiers were stationed in places like England and Germany - too far to come home for planting season. They were caught in the classic guns or butter bind. Their economy relied on the inflow of gold and goods from conquered terriitories, so they could not easily give them up. But they needed food, too, and the people who used to farm were now full-time soldiers.

Another example of economics dictating morality was London in Dickens' time. Economically speaking, it was nearly impossible to support a household with more than three people in it. Even the middle class could not afford more than one child at a time. So if a second child came along, they either killed it, or kicked the older child out of the house.
You see both at work in Oliver Twist. Orphanages were church-sanctioned baby-killing organizations. More than ninety percent of children in such orphanages died before they reached age 16.

If the parents kept a new child, the older child would be forced out on the streets to fend for itself. Children as young as three were turned out of their homes. Hence the gangs of boys roaming the streets, which we also see in Oliver Twist. (The girls were usually sent to work as servant girls or in brothels. They were also more likely to be killed at birth than boys.) Many of the street boys eventually ended up in the British navy, victims of press gangs.

Definitely not what we would consider a family friendly society, yet economically, they did very well.

But extended families are merely -- as the term "extended" indicates -- formed from the building blocks of nuclear families.

Not true. If it were, the nuclear family would be a universal, found in all human cultures. It is not. It hasn't even been the norm for most of our own history. "Paradise Lost" syndrome doesn't just refer to the Noble Savage myth. It also applies to those who romanticize our own past. The nuclear family was the rule in the '50s, which was also an economically prosperous time for us. Assuming the former caused the latter is not supported by the facts.

No, it's the other way around. Economic changes result in changed morality

A nation or a culture with an excellent moral foundation can survive bad economic times.....and can even come out stronger.

As, for example.....the United States and the Great Depression.

However, a weak moral climate leaves individual people without the strength of character that's necessary to face a crisis, and to deal with it adequately. A crisis such as a failing economy.

In a culture of weak moral character, people are too selfish to sacrifice anything -- and thus, they eventually end up by losing everything.

Not true. If it were, the nuclear family would be a universal, found in all human cultures. It is not. It hasn't even been the norm for most of our own history. "Paradise Lost" syndrome doesn't just refer to the Noble Savage myth. It also applies to those who romanticize our own past. The nuclear family was the rule in the '50s, which was also an economically prosperous time for us. Assuming the former caused the latter is not supported by the facts.

Our societies in the West -- and most societies in the East -- have never been based upon a family structure that amounts to communes.

Communal living, like all other forms of utopianism, simply doesn't work as advertised. In spite of all that's transpired -- from the bankrupt fantasies of the 19th century Utopians, to the abysmal failure of 20th century ideologies of various stripes -- we still haven't learned the lesson.

However -- people will insist on continuing to try out things other than the basic unit that has always been the elementary building-block of every stable, advanced society.

The nuclear family.

And, yes -- it has been the norm for most of history. In stable societies, that is.

Another example of economics dictating morality was London in Dickens' time. Economically speaking, it was nearly impossible to support a household with more than three people in it. Even the middle class could not afford more than one child at a time. So if a second child came along, they either killed it, or kicked the older child out of the house.
You see both at work in Oliver Twist. Orphanages were church-sanctioned baby-killing organizations. More than ninety percent of children in such orphanages died before they reached age 16.

Earlier, you recommended a book.

I'd like to recommend one, too.

It's entitled When Nations Die: Ten Warning Signs of a Culture in Crisis by Jim Nelson Black.

Among other symptoms -- no value placed upon the lives of infants. From ancient Carthage just prior to its razing by the Romans, to the present day......

Certain patterns stay the same.

Depression is internally driven.
If one is predisposed to depression- it wouldn't matter if he did find paradise- he still would have been unable to cope and the results would have been the same.

True, insofar as this statement goes.

But I think that it's interesting to note the fact that individuals of Paul Gauguin's ilk -- that is to say: of his particular intellectual/philosophical bent -- tend to be depressives in general.

Not that others don't suffer from depression too, mind you -- it's just that they are usually better equipped to deal with the problem.

His being a depressive doesn't change the fact that he went looking for something that he didn't find.

*A nation or a culture with an excellent moral foundation can survive bad economic times.....and can even come out stronger.

As, for example.....the United States and the Great Depression.*

That had nothing to do with morality. We are the world's only superpower because we settled a huge continent full of unexploited resources. We'd have to have really cocked it up not to have ended up dominant.

In particular, what happened in the 1930s was we discovered oil, and transitioned from an agricultural economy to an industrial one. Without that wealth of fossil fuels, we would not be where we are now, no matter how "moral" we were. The U.S. had more oil than Saudi Arabia. We've just used most of it, and so are no longer an oil exporter. OPEC is modelled on an organization that used to set quotas for U.S. oil companies.

Our societies in the West -- and most societies in the East -- have never been based upon a family structure that amounts to communes.

No, not communes. Communes imply that unrelated people are living together. That is not really natural. The Israelis found that out. They expected the children raised in a kibbutz to marry each other. None of them ever did, because they thought of each other as siblings Even though they were not related at all. We didn't evolve to live in a band of strangers. We evolved to live in an extended family. With people who share our genes.

And, yes -- it has been the norm for most of history. In stable societies, that is.

That is simply not true. It's the extended family that has been the norm throughout history. It's still the norm in much of the world.

And in a sense, it's still true for us. People who live in big cities don't know more people than those who live in small villages, or in a band of hunter-gatherers. (On average, of course.) Even living in cities of ten million or more, humans cannot make connections with more people than would have been in their Stone Age family band, millennia ago.

Certain patterns stay the same.

Definitely true.

so what if he went looking for something and didn't find it-that happens to a lot of people- doesn't change the fact that no one made him kill himself- he made the decision to do that and he followed through with it- it's all his own responsability. If someone wants to do something- they will find all the justification in the world to do it. By the same token if one does not want to do something- short of a gun against the head, they cannot be forced to do it. So according to your statement because he didnt find what he was lookign for- his death is not his own fault? He killed himself because he was a selfish, self centered egomaniac- everything revolved around him and what he wanted to find, and because the world did not see fit to work the way he wanted- he left it. Life is 10% what happens to us and 90% how we react to that 10%. He chose his path on his own.

"Here's the example I used. Imagine you could read the mind of the guy sitting in the office working. "...need to calculate the cash flow oh look there's that hot secretary with the great ass, love to do her, but the finance group hasn't released the figures yet so I really can't get an accurate account there she is again--great set of tits, love to suck on them--but the boss is demanding it. Damn it, I'll have to call Karen (picture that nice rack she's got) and see if she'll give me a heads up..." That's three sexual thoughts over the course of probably a few seconds. Most men simply integrate it into their thought pattern and move on." Not exactly peer reviewed science to support the oft repeated "sex thoughts every few seconds" ignorance now is it??.... { chuckle}utter nonsense! :-/

"If that's the case then what the hell are men doing in positions of authority when they are so easily distracted and unfocused and too shallow to be able to provide the uninterupted concentration required by most higher level jobs." Because we (at least speaking of myself and other men I've talked about this with) are used to it? Look, it's not a matter of "being distracted" or shallow or unfocused or what other prejudiced and perjorative language it turns your crank to use. Tell me, if you have a car, have you ever driven and basically been on autopilot? Driven without putting your entire attention on the road. Maybe having a conversation with someone in the car, listening to music (maybe singing along), admiring some nice scenery you're passing? Ever done anything like that? If you say no and you've driven, you're probably a liar. Even people whose life depends on paying exacting attention to thgeir surroundings when driving, race car drivers, are able to converse on the radio while jockeying for position amongst 20 other cars moving at nearly 200 miles an hour in a confined space. The human mind can multitask. Right now, as I'm typing this, the TV is on in the background and my attention is flicking back and forth so I'm able to type this almost as fast as I would without distration and monitor the TV in case something interesting is happening, while also paying attention to my radio in case I have an emergency call and have to run to an ambulance call or to the fire truck. People can do that while observing other people in a superficial way. I freely admit (and my girlfriend would kick me if I deny it) that I will glance at a woman while having a conversation, take note of physical attributes or something about her if I know her personally, have an idle thought of something in a sexual context, and carry on without missing a beat. Men (and woman) who can't do this would quickly become unable to function in society. The majority of us recognize that allowing a momentary thought to distract us is a waste of time. Odds are we're not really going to end up having sex with the woman, so what's the point of putting too much thought into it? A good fictional example is in one of Robert Parker's Spencer novels. Spencer walks into an office to meet with someone and is introduced to a 40sh woman. Spencer notices she's attractive, that she seems to have a large bust squeezed into a suit jacket that seems a bit too small, idly has a passing thought of what they'd look like if she was topless, and then moves into the conversation without it coming up again. He's not likely to have her as a partner, so the sexual aspect is simply shoved away while he gets down to business. I was in a similar situation at a recent conference. One of the companies I was dealing with had an executive who wore a very cleavage-revealing suit, and she had, and I'll be honest, a nice figure. I could glance at it and admire it without it interfering with our discussions which involved, possibly, millions of dollars.

who let you out of the kitchen?

"very cleavage-revealing suit, and she had, and I'll be honest, a nice figure. I could glance" BLAH,BLAH,BLAH we are not just talking about some inappropriately dress tramp prancing about your office. were are talking about the utterly ignorant and never proven assertion that We Men think about getting laid "every 30 seconds" etc. that means while animating a karate fight in MAYA, Defacating,listening to the mechanic explain why it will cost $794 to fix our cars,watching self important grey beards argue foreign policy on public television. and changing our infant daughters dirty diapers. and so on and so on, we all stop during these activities to think about having sex???......Citizen please !!!

ok i love wolf359 :)

The "inappropriately dressed tramp" was a senior vice president.

And you might not love wolf359 as much given that he's wrong. Oh sure, not every 30 seconds by any means, but...

"The association between fantasies and a healthy sex life is so strong, in fact, that it's now considered pathological not to have sexual fantasies."

"In one study, researchers asked people at random times during the day whether sex had crossed their minds during the past five minutes. Among 14- and 15-year-olds, 57 percent of boys and 42 percent of girls said yes. Affirmative responses were less common with increasing age: among 56-to 64-year-olds, 19 percent of men and 12 percent of women answered yes."

(From Psychology Today Sept 1995, reporting on Leitenberg and Henning's study in Psychological Bulletin, 117, 469-496)

who cares what her title was- innappropriate dress is innappropriate dress ;p and a study of 15 yr olds does not support your allegations. Like DUH DUDE it's the hormone years :P

Thanks Randym77 and XENOPHONZ for a very interesting debate. 'Phonz, you remind me, in a politico-philosophical way, of a guy over at the nasty 'R' place who also goes by a Greek handle is it a frat thing ? :-)

"I who cares what her title was- innappropriate dress is innappropriate dress" Who decides what's inappropriate? You? So, what, she should go around in a veil and full body dress? Burqa? A high-collar loose-fitting floor-length overcoat? And while we're on that subject, how about those women who breast-feed in public places? Disgusting, isn't it. The baby should suffer until the woman is somewhere private just so they don't open their tops in an inappropriate manner that may briefly attract attention. After all, same thing, isn't it?