There are a wide variety of domains worth caring about and there are no objective, context-independent principles for determining which domains these are. You just have to try it out and see. Some people care about mathematics, others about music, some prefer baseball and others bullfighting. Some prefer drinking a local wine with their friends. Whether a domain is worth caring about is determined by whether it appropriately elicits further and further meaningful involvement with it. (219)
I want to seek out secular forms of the sacred, that is, notions of the sacred that do not require a God or a Church. But I think there can be a line between the secular and the profane. I want to believe that what is worth caring about is more than simply what can keep one’s interest. Kelly and Dreyfus’ list of things to care about: math, music, baseball, bull-fighting, social drinking—these are all largely aesthetic pursuits—comes off as a very luxurious sacred. In a world of such great suffering, this list appears shallow and callous. Surely there must be more important pursuits than the ones on this list.
As a Humanist, I think a secular notion of the Good can be developed by examining human need. Attentiveness to moods and development of skills definitely have a place in my image of human health and flourishing—but there are many fundamental levels (think Maslow’s hierarchy) of human need/good that deserve our caring attention before sports (ex: hunger, housing, safety, work, friends, love, family, heritage, history, a better world for the future). Kelly and Dreyfus’ seem to lack a sense of gravitas in the mission of determining what humans might hold most dear in a world after the death-of-God. They don’t even offer bread—only circus.