So... my interpretation of events....
Is that the world was largely agrarian prior to the industrial revolution.
The industrial revolution sparked the gilded age of growing inequality and social strife, and eventually World War 1 occurred.
World war 1 was a world-scale war taking advantage of the power of the industrial revolution, and it traumatized the world. This led to the modernist movement which started to disregard tradition and while it relied on authority was working to create new answers in a new world.
Modernism obviously led to some new answers, and some were better and some were much worse, but eventually that led to World War 2.
World war 2 was another world-scale war taking advantage of the technologies and ideologies of the modern age, and it too was deeply traumatizing. This is one of the factors that led to postmodernism, which disregards tradition but additionally disregards authority.
And it seems that modernism tries to find universal objective truths and post-modernism rejects universal objective truths. It could be said that both viewpoints are asking the wrong question.
If one is looking for universal truth, and they think they find it, then it gives one an ironclad moral certitude that they've found "The Truth", so anything in pursuit of "The Truth" is acceptable. This led to ideologies like fascism and national socialism which were convinced of their superiority to everything to the point of violent conflict.
By contrast, if one totally rejects universal truth, then it becomes too easy to disregard things that are "universal enough". It can cause your ideology to reject things that are real and true because they're inconvenient or because there's a miniscule minority that might be an exception to the rule. For example, there are countless examples where postmodernists reject fundamental realities of humanity because it's inconvenient or because there's a miniscule minority that might be an exception to the rule.
So both embracing of total universal truth and the rejection of any universal truth are not productive.
There is a universe that is objective and so regardless of our point of view we ought to try to understand the objective universe because for example if you are hit by a speeding train then no amount of argumentation will protect you from physical harm.
Moreover, there are commonalities that come from our shared humanity that can be considered to be objective for the purposes of discussions with other humans. Our brains are almost universally wired in certain ways and identifying those commonalities and our shared humanity is deeply important because sometimes those objective human truths aren't rational or logical, but they are important because we are human.
On the other hand, there are things that aren't universal, and that's where we need to be careful not to ascribe things to universality that aren't universal. Some of the attitudes we believe are universal are in fact cultural constructs. A good example would be the modern era's rejection of slavery. In the history of culture, slavery is more common than uncommon. The western rejection of slavery is partially cultural due to the influence of Christianity and the idea that all men are created equal, and partially practical due to the reduced requirement for slavery in the wake of the industrial revolution. It's a deeply held conviction, but it isn't by any means universal.
I know I'm focusing a lot on the attribute of rejecting tradition or objectivity in both and the rejection of authority in the one, but in the same way as if you're crossing the ocean a change in bearing of just a degree or two could land you in a completely different country, the first principles of a philosophy fundamentally change the destination it might come to.
If history is any indication, the next phase of history is going to be a historical revival where many of the traditions we've cast aside will be reclaimed. Not all of them, because some of them were cast aside for good reasons, and we won't reject all the novel things we've created because they were created for good reasons.
Don't get me wrong, I'm deeply concerned with a traditional revival because while our novelty has become decadent, it has also brought about a lot of new and good ways of looking at the world. Whether I like the idea of something coming or not, or whether I think it's the right direction or not, cannot have a bearing on whether I predict such a thing occurring.
One beneficial thing to a traditional revival on an environmental front would be a return to the sort of "salt of the earth" actions that benefit everyone, such as having a garden in your back yard. Rediscovering the pride in making things with your hands and reaping the benefits of food and craft with a smaller environmental footprint because they literally take place using materials from a small geographical area.
Technology would play a large role in improving such traditions, for example by letting people who are better at a thing spread information about successes over the Internet on a scale that was impossible previously.
The Internet can also democratize access to information about these things, ensuring that individuals who would otherwise be blind can instead get access to the best way to do things, ensuring that their time is spent most productively even if they're not doing things in a modern industrialized manner.
The biggest danger from my view is that the Internet is slowly losing its status as a free place. Little by little, interests are getting their fingers into it. Governments are increasingly legislating the Internet with a hope to amplify messages the powers that be prefer and silence or minimize messages the powers that be disagree with or don't want out there. That could very quickly become stuff like information about gardening because they don't get tax money or campaign contributions off of free food grown in your back yard.
Is that the world was largely agrarian prior to the industrial revolution.
The industrial revolution sparked the gilded age of growing inequality and social strife, and eventually World War 1 occurred.
World war 1 was a world-scale war taking advantage of the power of the industrial revolution, and it traumatized the world. This led to the modernist movement which started to disregard tradition and while it relied on authority was working to create new answers in a new world.
Modernism obviously led to some new answers, and some were better and some were much worse, but eventually that led to World War 2.
World war 2 was another world-scale war taking advantage of the technologies and ideologies of the modern age, and it too was deeply traumatizing. This is one of the factors that led to postmodernism, which disregards tradition but additionally disregards authority.
And it seems that modernism tries to find universal objective truths and post-modernism rejects universal objective truths. It could be said that both viewpoints are asking the wrong question.
If one is looking for universal truth, and they think they find it, then it gives one an ironclad moral certitude that they've found "The Truth", so anything in pursuit of "The Truth" is acceptable. This led to ideologies like fascism and national socialism which were convinced of their superiority to everything to the point of violent conflict.
By contrast, if one totally rejects universal truth, then it becomes too easy to disregard things that are "universal enough". It can cause your ideology to reject things that are real and true because they're inconvenient or because there's a miniscule minority that might be an exception to the rule. For example, there are countless examples where postmodernists reject fundamental realities of humanity because it's inconvenient or because there's a miniscule minority that might be an exception to the rule.
So both embracing of total universal truth and the rejection of any universal truth are not productive.
There is a universe that is objective and so regardless of our point of view we ought to try to understand the objective universe because for example if you are hit by a speeding train then no amount of argumentation will protect you from physical harm.
Moreover, there are commonalities that come from our shared humanity that can be considered to be objective for the purposes of discussions with other humans. Our brains are almost universally wired in certain ways and identifying those commonalities and our shared humanity is deeply important because sometimes those objective human truths aren't rational or logical, but they are important because we are human.
On the other hand, there are things that aren't universal, and that's where we need to be careful not to ascribe things to universality that aren't universal. Some of the attitudes we believe are universal are in fact cultural constructs. A good example would be the modern era's rejection of slavery. In the history of culture, slavery is more common than uncommon. The western rejection of slavery is partially cultural due to the influence of Christianity and the idea that all men are created equal, and partially practical due to the reduced requirement for slavery in the wake of the industrial revolution. It's a deeply held conviction, but it isn't by any means universal.
I know I'm focusing a lot on the attribute of rejecting tradition or objectivity in both and the rejection of authority in the one, but in the same way as if you're crossing the ocean a change in bearing of just a degree or two could land you in a completely different country, the first principles of a philosophy fundamentally change the destination it might come to.
If history is any indication, the next phase of history is going to be a historical revival where many of the traditions we've cast aside will be reclaimed. Not all of them, because some of them were cast aside for good reasons, and we won't reject all the novel things we've created because they were created for good reasons.
Don't get me wrong, I'm deeply concerned with a traditional revival because while our novelty has become decadent, it has also brought about a lot of new and good ways of looking at the world. Whether I like the idea of something coming or not, or whether I think it's the right direction or not, cannot have a bearing on whether I predict such a thing occurring.
One beneficial thing to a traditional revival on an environmental front would be a return to the sort of "salt of the earth" actions that benefit everyone, such as having a garden in your back yard. Rediscovering the pride in making things with your hands and reaping the benefits of food and craft with a smaller environmental footprint because they literally take place using materials from a small geographical area.
Technology would play a large role in improving such traditions, for example by letting people who are better at a thing spread information about successes over the Internet on a scale that was impossible previously.
The Internet can also democratize access to information about these things, ensuring that individuals who would otherwise be blind can instead get access to the best way to do things, ensuring that their time is spent most productively even if they're not doing things in a modern industrialized manner.
The biggest danger from my view is that the Internet is slowly losing its status as a free place. Little by little, interests are getting their fingers into it. Governments are increasingly legislating the Internet with a hope to amplify messages the powers that be prefer and silence or minimize messages the powers that be disagree with or don't want out there. That could very quickly become stuff like information about gardening because they don't get tax money or campaign contributions off of free food grown in your back yard.
- replies
- 2
- announces
- 0
- likes
- 0