Archangel
03-19-2009, 10:05 AM
Because at this point, we might just as well re-name this the Religion section. Not that I don't like our debates regarding matters of faith, but I'm getting the feeling we keep circling those wagons ad infinitum, so a cease-fire might be in order.
So let's get down to business, shall we?
You know what I've noticed? In the realm of personal relationships, people never have serious talks when things are going relatively well, even if there are some obvious issues which need working out: However, as long as people can live with those, they prefer glossing them over instead of rocking the boat. It's only after a huge fight or some other major event that actual discussions and (possibly) the resulting catharsis take place.
In short, your girlfriend has never said "we need to talk" when things were peachy.
Now, this is hardly earth-shattering stuff, I know. Humans are lazy, and more driven towards a comfortable status quo than actual improvement, in any context, from relationships to entire civilisations.
So is it any wonder that these last few decades, having seen the greatest prosperity and comfort ever known, the West has produced pretty much zero original thought? Or, channeling Watchmen, would America be worse off philosophically without the disaster that was Vietnam?
Is crisis the wellspring of thought? Is there no progress without struggle?
Paradigms only need to shift when the current paradigm reveals itself to be insufficient, just as on a personal level, people who own TVs and cars seldom find themselves yearning for ethereal things such as "liberty" or "justice". The great revolutions didn't happen because of ideals, they happened because people were oppressed or starving. The ideals - namely, the notions on how the current state of affairs was wrong, and how to improve it - were a product of misery.
I mean, is it surprising that while Athens, constantly fighting for her survival, produced the greatest thinkers mankind has ever known, Rome, in her centuries of peace and wealth, produced hardly any - the only notable exceptions occurring during the upheavals in the 100 years around Year Zero (end of the Republic, rise of Christianity)?
The awesome evolution of thought that was humanism was the direct result of Europe's greatest tragedy, namely the Black Death of 1348. Suddenly, scholastic thought and the iteration of faith which had governed Europe for centuries had proved themselves woefully inadequate in making sense of this monstrous crisis, and people like Boccaccio realised that something radically new was needed.
The examples are as endless as they are significant: the Thirty Years War and the Lisbon Earthquake gave birth to Enlightenment; the wars of the late 18th century brought about the rise of democratic thought; the Napoleonic Wars kick-started European nationalism and socialism; the aftermath of World War I saw some of the greatest artistic production Europe had ever known, etc etc.
The last great shift was obviously WWII (and the Bomb), which made us re-think human dignity and the inalienable rights that come with it, the role of war in politics, the fallibility inherent in constitutional democracy, the importance of trade etc, not to mention renewed discussions of the nature and the possibilities of faith and art.
Since then... what?
One one hand, one could oviously bring forth the argument that as long as things are fine, there is no need for change. The problem is, things are never "fine"; even today, a great many things are very wrong in the world, from greed to the resulting injustice, starvation, epidemics, environmental problems, fanaticism, and so on; but it is only when these things reach the boiling point, when our comforts are threatened, that we get off our arses and actually do something about them. Until then, we're totally cool with everything that's wrong. You know your girl hates your father, but it never comes up until Christmas and the inevitable shouting match.
It's a sad testament to the human condition that denial and procrastination in the face of obvious deficiencies and grievances appear to be the natural reaction, that we only tackle problems AFTER they've blown up in our face.
Or am I the one who has it ass backwards, and it's not crisis which begets progress, but that it's the constant evolution of thought which strains the status quo to the breaking point?
So let's get down to business, shall we?
You know what I've noticed? In the realm of personal relationships, people never have serious talks when things are going relatively well, even if there are some obvious issues which need working out: However, as long as people can live with those, they prefer glossing them over instead of rocking the boat. It's only after a huge fight or some other major event that actual discussions and (possibly) the resulting catharsis take place.
In short, your girlfriend has never said "we need to talk" when things were peachy.
Now, this is hardly earth-shattering stuff, I know. Humans are lazy, and more driven towards a comfortable status quo than actual improvement, in any context, from relationships to entire civilisations.
So is it any wonder that these last few decades, having seen the greatest prosperity and comfort ever known, the West has produced pretty much zero original thought? Or, channeling Watchmen, would America be worse off philosophically without the disaster that was Vietnam?
Is crisis the wellspring of thought? Is there no progress without struggle?
Paradigms only need to shift when the current paradigm reveals itself to be insufficient, just as on a personal level, people who own TVs and cars seldom find themselves yearning for ethereal things such as "liberty" or "justice". The great revolutions didn't happen because of ideals, they happened because people were oppressed or starving. The ideals - namely, the notions on how the current state of affairs was wrong, and how to improve it - were a product of misery.
I mean, is it surprising that while Athens, constantly fighting for her survival, produced the greatest thinkers mankind has ever known, Rome, in her centuries of peace and wealth, produced hardly any - the only notable exceptions occurring during the upheavals in the 100 years around Year Zero (end of the Republic, rise of Christianity)?
The awesome evolution of thought that was humanism was the direct result of Europe's greatest tragedy, namely the Black Death of 1348. Suddenly, scholastic thought and the iteration of faith which had governed Europe for centuries had proved themselves woefully inadequate in making sense of this monstrous crisis, and people like Boccaccio realised that something radically new was needed.
The examples are as endless as they are significant: the Thirty Years War and the Lisbon Earthquake gave birth to Enlightenment; the wars of the late 18th century brought about the rise of democratic thought; the Napoleonic Wars kick-started European nationalism and socialism; the aftermath of World War I saw some of the greatest artistic production Europe had ever known, etc etc.
The last great shift was obviously WWII (and the Bomb), which made us re-think human dignity and the inalienable rights that come with it, the role of war in politics, the fallibility inherent in constitutional democracy, the importance of trade etc, not to mention renewed discussions of the nature and the possibilities of faith and art.
Since then... what?
One one hand, one could oviously bring forth the argument that as long as things are fine, there is no need for change. The problem is, things are never "fine"; even today, a great many things are very wrong in the world, from greed to the resulting injustice, starvation, epidemics, environmental problems, fanaticism, and so on; but it is only when these things reach the boiling point, when our comforts are threatened, that we get off our arses and actually do something about them. Until then, we're totally cool with everything that's wrong. You know your girl hates your father, but it never comes up until Christmas and the inevitable shouting match.
It's a sad testament to the human condition that denial and procrastination in the face of obvious deficiencies and grievances appear to be the natural reaction, that we only tackle problems AFTER they've blown up in our face.
Or am I the one who has it ass backwards, and it's not crisis which begets progress, but that it's the constant evolution of thought which strains the status quo to the breaking point?