Comments by "Andrew Bowen" (@andrewbowen2837) on "Academy of Ideas"
channel.
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@bungus87 the main thing is from Notes from Underground, just the first section/part (about half of the work). It's a monologue from an intelligent man who cannot act because he always contemplates, and has become bitter about it. He describes how mathematically and rationally oriented lifestyles tend to turn towards irrationality out of spite, where they choose 2 times 2 is 5 just because they can, out of boredom, spite, and the desire for free will. He claims men aren't piano keys.
Another instance, albeit less explicit, is with The Brothers Karamazov and the contradistinction between the Grand Inquisitor, the embodiment of reason, and Jesus Christ, the embodiment of freedom and love. I won't spoil that for you though, but it's something to keep in mind when you read it.
The movement I was in reference to is "Post-Truth," as defined by the original poster. I think people have become disillusioned with the project of Modernity to establish the hegemony of science and reason, and thus have turned to emotions more. It is reactionary at the current state, but I think we will eventually balance out in a way similar to ancient Greece and find Sophrosyne
2
-
2
-
@seansmith3058 I think things will balance out because people will find the two extremes to be infeasible. We have experienced the one extreme for the past few centuries in the form of pure rationality, and in reaction to that, we will likely have a little while of pure emotion (I can't estimate how long though). However, I think people will find that neither by themselves can properly explain everything about humanity and phenomenology, leading to a reconciliation where both rationality and irrationality are used simultaneously. At least, I hope this is the case, because I think both extremes can be disastrous for us.
I find evidence for this stance in examining the history of political movements. Where there is an era of progressivism, it is followed by an era of traditionalism, and vice versa. I am unsure, though, if there is a balance between those two extremes, so we may just be in an endless cycle of that. If there is a golden mean, it will require a revolutionary country to set the standard for everyone else to follow on a global scale. But I digress; to summarize, I think there has been some dialectical aspect to history. Things have been like a metronome or seesaw, back and forth at different extremes.
You are probably asking how this leads me to thinking a balance can be made, since this evidence tends to show the opposite. With the ancients, Reason/philosophy reigned, then with the medievals, irrationality/theology reigned (I hesitate to say "irrational" here because they did use philosophy to argue for their religions - Aquinas, Averroes, Erasmus, Calvin, were all philosophic - but they all stopped their questioning at a certain point). Now we have seen rationality/science reign, to be replaced by irrationality/post-truth. Doesn't this seem to imply that there will be no balance, and everything continues to follow the reactionary, dialectical model?
Yes, it does, up to our moment and the near future. However, I cannot comprehend where the next stage will be, after Post-Truth, if it continues on this model. Perhaps this is an issue on my end then; and I would be unable to deny that possibility. What I think, though, is that we will have seen the strengths and weaknesses of both sides, that reason is too powerful a tool not to use and that irrational intuitions serve their purposes as well, and decide that we cannot return to any of the ways of the past in their entirety, as a whole extreme by itself. We will not be able to embrace philosophy alone once again, nor religion alone. That leaves two options then: forge a new way of understanding beyond rationality and irrationality, or to combine the two. I cannot think of what the former might be, so the latter seems the only real solution.
There are a whole lot of thoughts I have on the "hows" of this approach. One is the structuring of the psyche, like in Plato's Republic, except a Venn diagram perhaps, and a reintroduction of telos and teleology. One is using Nietzsche's approach and making each man master of himself (which could be post-truth to an extent too. I also have a very big hang up with this approach, but that's another topic). But I think the most fitting would be something from Dostoevsky: to be able to combine impulse or instinct with prudence, solving the existential, intellectual, and free-choice anxiety that the Underground Man suffers. In other words, to make each person both a man of thought and a man of action.
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
@mashumichelle "demonstrably" huh? First off, what do you mean by religion? Second, do you mean all religions, including Taoism, Buddhism, Stoicism, etc.? Third, how is it demonstrable? Is it the sense of community that it fosters, the philanthropic accomplishments, civic activism, the moral compass that guides behavior, or the hope and peace of mind it provides?
Furthermore, I can tell you've only selectively cherry picked that which fits your own agenda, and have ignored the things you are dogmatic to. I don't have to know you personally to know how you think and what you revere; you're no different than thousands of others in the world, many of whom I've had this exact conversation. So I'll repeat the same lines I give them: all forms of epistemology and ontology have been abuses for terrible ends throughout history. Have you ever heard of Juan Gines de Sepulveda? He used philosophy from Aristotle to argue that indigenous people in the Americas should be destroyed and/or enslaved. How about someone like Herbert Spencer, Earnest Hooton, Samuel Morton, Francis Galton, Josef Mengele, and researchers all throughout the twentieth century who committed or justified all sorts of atrocities in the name of science and its advancement? How about people like Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, and so many others who slaughtered millions or forced thousands to migrate out of the same anti-theist dogma that you profess? And don't even get me started on the many unprovable assumptions that are required for a belief in science in the first place...
You and your likeminded echo chamber are not exempt from atrocities throughout history, and you are not exempt from the same pitfalls that all worldviews share. The fundamental problem with all of them is an assumption of superiority to the followers, and inferiority to the others. You're no different. How about that for "free thinking"?
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@foreverbooked2964 you really believe that? That's blind faith if I've ever seen it. You profess a scientific ideal, but that is rarely how it is actually practiced. Hypotheses themselves are conclusions. Scientific work starts with a conclusion, then showcases evidence for that conclusion. However, they never showcase failures, cherry picking what they publish and portray to the public. Additionally, the very topics scientists research and what methods they use are the result of cherry picking. The only difference for them is that it isn't subconscious, but actually conscious.
And by the way, the only thing that distinguishes a hypothesis and a theory are how many people accept it. If the majority of scientists agree on a hypothesis, it arbitrarily becomes a theory. If we apply the same concept to all people as a whole, belief in God has been extremely popular throughout history, which would have made it an accepted hypothesis, and thus, a theory.
1
-
1