Let's talk about John Gray!

Húrin

I wanted to ask of this forum, has anyone else read a fascinating book called Straw Dogs by naturalist philosopher John Gray? He attempts to "formulate a view of the world without humans at the centre" (paraphrase from the introduction), and his main target in that book is humanism and other forms of popular contemporary thought. I don't agree with most of it and I don't think he argues flawlessly, but I find his views on many things to be quite realistic and readable.

eoin5

"Ethics and politics do not advance in line with the growth of knowledge — not even in the long run."

Thats pants. Its not a linear response, they play a constant game of catch up and some knowledge takes longer to assimilate than others but we are always progressing with new knowledge. What stays the same or even grows is our sense of outrage when someone deviates from the moral and political zeitgeist, that is how many percieve that we arent making progress. New knowledge is what drives our ideals closer "in the long run".

Húrin

eoin5 wrote: »

"Ethics and politics do not advance in line with the growth of knowledge — not even in the long run."

Thats pants. Its not a linear response, they play a constant game of catch up and some knowledge takes longer to assimilate than others but we are always progressing with new knowledge. What stays the same or even grows is our sense of outrage when someone deviates from the moral and political zeitgeist, that is how many percieve that we arent making progress. New knowledge is what drives our ideals closer "in the long run".

Is he not just saying that new technology and knowledge do not cause utopian transformations in the human individual or collective? (a recurring theme in the book)

Our world is no less violent, for instance than it ever was. Technology doesn't change that, just makes the violence more efficient.

common_parlance

Húrin wrote: »

Our world is no less violent, for instance than it ever was.

Forgive me if this is slightly off-topic, but I have to ask where you are taking that from. I think it was you I saw mentioning it in another thread/other threads as well. Do you mean on an individual or international level?

eoin5

Húrin wrote: »

Is he not just saying that new technology and knowledge do not cause utopian transformations in the human individual or collective? (a recurring theme in the book)

Our world is no less violent, for instance than it ever was. Technology doesn't change that, just makes the violence more efficient.

Thats exactly the point im refuting. The chances of you being killed by another human is tiny compared to before modern weapons came on the scene, why is that?

Here we are: http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

Dades

The most violence is perpetrated by AK47s (designed in the 40's) and machetes. I don't see how anyone could blame 'modern technology' for the world's conflicts.

Though I'd agree that utopia is a pipe dream.

Red Hand

Dades wrote: »

The most violence is perpetrated by AK47s (designed in the 40's) and machetes. I don't see how anyone could blame 'modern technology' for the world's conflicts.

Though I'd agree that utopia is a pipe dream.

As regards modern technology and violence, I would regard agriculture as the modern technology that causes violence.:pac: Since people have decided to "own" resources such as land (and substitute symbols that represent resources), there has been large scale violence between groups.

Húrin

eoin5 wrote: »

Thats exactly the point im refuting. The chances of you being killed by another human is tiny compared to before modern weapons came on the scene, why is that?

Here we are: http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html

common_parlance wrote: »

Forgive me if this is slightly off-topic, but I have to ask where you are taking that from. I think it was you I saw mentioning it in another thread/other threads as well. Do you mean on an individual or international level?

International. I think that violence on an individual level, which is decreasing as Pinker explained, is giving way to increasing structural violence. Our material prosperity eliminates the need to violently compete amongst each other. This prosperity has been bought and continues to be taken by the exploitation of people in distant countries of the world, and other species. This is why I think that violence continues unabated.

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

International. I think that violence on an individual level, which is decreasing as Pinker explained, is giving way to increasing structural violence. Our material prosperity eliminates the need to violently compete amongst each other. This prosperity has been bought and continues to be taken by the exploitation of people in distant countries of the world, and other species. This is why I think that violence continues unabated.

I've a feeling that you're going to tell sometime soon how we can avoid this violence. Would I be right? Are you a bit of a luddite?

Zombrex

John Gray! Damn I hate that idiot!







who is John Gray again?

common_parlance

Húrin wrote: »

International. I think that violence on an individual level, which is decreasing as Pinker explained, is giving way to increasing structural violence. Our material prosperity eliminates the need to violently compete amongst each other. This prosperity has been bought and continues to be taken by the exploitation of people in distant countries of the world, and other species. This is why I think that violence continues unabated.

But it is at least a little abated, right? The most recent figures I could come up with are from the Human Security Report 2005, which says (and I'm just picking through the overview here) the number of armed conflicts have been in decline, genocides are down, fewer international crises and fewer refugees. Deaths per conflict are down. Military coups are down. Terrorism is the only one on the up.

Somewhere in the document (I think) they put all this decrease down primarily to the spread of democracy.

These are just figures and I don't suppose the data on conflicts are entirely reliable (and are a couple of years out of date) but I'd be inclined to believe this is a trend that will continue in the long run. You don't agree?

Zombrex

Húrin wrote: »

International. I think that violence on an individual level, which is decreasing as Pinker explained, is giving way to increasing structural violence.

How are you defining "increasing"

Is it a case of more violence on a numerical level or as a percentage of total population?

And do you think the exploitation of foreign peoples for our material gain is worse now than say in colonial times?

cavedave

Violence has been decreasing. Whether is be murder or war related deaths both numbers are declining. Reference from here

Zombrex

cavedave wrote: »

Violence has been decreasing. Whether is be murder or war related deaths both numbers are declining. Reference from here

Great now all the Christians will be crediting Jesus for that :pac:

Overblood

cavedave wrote: »

Violence has been decreasing. Whether is be murder or war related deaths both numbers are declining. Reference from here

What the hell? Where did they pull the stats for 2000BC out of?

common_parlance

Overblood wrote: »

What the hell? Where did they pull the stats for 2000BC out of?

The Bible somewhere, I'd imagine. Probably the Book of Numbers. Have a little faith!

To be fair though, the guy from that link explains that he's working off two different guys' theories about the development of violence. That graph is an imagining of what the data would look like if they existed. If you're looking for actual data, the Human Security Report I linked earlier is the best source I could find.

Húrin

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I've a feeling that you're going to tell sometime soon how we can avoid this violence. Would I be right? Are you a bit of a luddite?

No and no. Violence to me seems to be inherent to humanity, though it may take many forms. One of my peeves though is people who say that our generation is more moral than previous generations, or less violent - an opinion that I would be very sceptical about.

CerebralCortex

Húrin wrote: »

No and no. Violence to me seems to be inherent to humanity, though it may take many forms. One of my peeves though is people who say that our generation is more moral than previous generations, or less violent - an opinion that I would be very sceptical about.

I can't quote it but I heard on the radio that the Irish were a very violent group of people. That a brawl or fight was named after Donnybrook because the Irish were notorius for doing it and noteably in Donnybrook. I'd say we're a little less violent just the means of infliction have changed.

Goduznt Xzst

Húrin wrote: »

Is he not just saying that new technology and knowledge do not cause utopian transformations in the human individual or collective? (a recurring theme in the book)

I'd agree. I think our base human traits are instinctual and no amount of knowledge or technology will change that. Sure you can put a human in a society where they won't feel inclined to kill their neighbor but this is no more a change in our being than putting a lamb in an electrified cage and noting that because a Lion has learnt to not touch it that the Lion no longer wishes to kill lambs.

You put an axe in a mans hands, grab their child then tell them you are going to kill their child and I think you'll find that any modern civilized man is no different to an uneducated goat herder from 4000 years ago.

If you put a monkey in a penguin suit and teach it to ride a bike, it is no less a monkey then the ones that swing in the trees and throw feces at each other.

cavedave

Goduznt Xzst

If you put a monkey in a penguin suit and teach it to ride a bike, it is no less a monkey then the ones that swing in the trees and throw feces at each other.

As a tool using species are we not defined by our tools as well as our biology. The Flynn effect has shown rising IQ's in recent decades and the cause seems to be access to modern cultural tools .

Our technology is changing us profoundly in just a few decades. As another example the tool of vaccination has completely changed how people look. ,no more smallpox scars.

But we are still monkeys.

eoin5

Húrin wrote: »

No and no. Violence to me seems to be inherent to humanity, though it may take many forms. One of my peeves though is people who say that our generation is more moral than previous generations, or less violent - an opinion that I would be very sceptical about.

More moral would mean that we are performing better to our own morals. Its a satisfaction level that seems to remain constant. What changes and grows are the morals themselves.

Is our world a better place to live in now than year X? Thats a better question to ask without fumbling with words like moral.

Do you think that absolutely no progress has been made from previous generations?

cavedave

Just to go against my own argument.

If you watch the fog of war about Robert McNamara who died today.
There is an interesting sequence on the morality of firebombing japan.

"Do not think yourself better because you burn up friends and enemies with long-range missiles without ever seeing what you have done"
--Thomas Merton

dvpower

Goduznt Xzst wrote: »

You put an axe in a mans hands, grab their child then tell them you are going to kill their child and I think you'll find that any modern civilized man is no different to an uneducated goat herder from 4000 years ago.

The Milgram experiment, the Stanford prison experiment and others demonstrate what a thin veneer civilisation is.

eoin5

dvpower wrote: »

The Milgram experiment, the Stanford prison experiment and others demonstrate what a thin veneer civilisation is.

A bottle of Jack Daniels will do the same

Dades

Or crashing a plane-load of schoolkids on an uninhabited island...

Húrin

eoin5 wrote: »

More moral would mean that we are performing better to our own morals. Its a satisfaction level that seems to remain constant. What changes and grows are the morals themselves.

This argument was made by Pinker in the video posted at the start of the thread. It is somewhat plausible but weakened by the fact that moral teachers of thousands of years ago such as Buddha, Jesus Christ and St. Paul preached morals that are mostly "up" to the standards of todays, and IMO often exceed popular morality of our epoch.

eoin5

Húrin wrote: »

This argument was made by Pinker in the video posted at the start of the thread. It is somewhat plausible but weakened by the fact that moral teachers of thousands of years ago such as Buddha, Jesus Christ and St. Paul preached morals that are mostly "up" to the standards of todays, and IMO often exceed popular morality of our epoch.

Mostly up to standards, I doubt it. If jesus landed down now people would find him morally reprehensible. Our selection on an a-la-carté basis. Id say most of us put "love thy neighbour as your self" ahead of taking the lords name in vain these days. It stands to reason that we tend to keep the ones worth keeping as we progress.

Húrin

eoin5 wrote: »

Mostly up to standards, I doubt it. If jesus landed down now people would find him morally reprehensible. Our selection on an a-la-carté basis. Id say most of us put "love thy neighbour as your self" ahead of taking the lords name in vain these days. It stands to reason that we tend to keep the ones worth keeping as we progress.

What makes you think that Jesus would be considered reprehensible? Many people hold him up as a great moral teacher to this day, and not just Christians.

You choose an odd example. Jesus himself put love thy neighbour as your self ahead of taking the Lord's name in vain (Luke 10). In any case, nobody thinks of taking the lords name in vain as a virtuous act. Few of us think that those who don't like taking the lords name in vain are guilty of a detestable opinion.

eoin5

Húrin wrote: »

What makes you think that Jesus would be considered reprehensible? Many people hold him up as a great moral teacher to this day, and not just Christians.

Sorry about the last example, wasnt the greatest.

I agree he was a great moral teacher worthy of learning from but getting his disciples to leave their familys to follow him was way off todays mark and using the appalling idea of hell to promote his teachings is morally wrong by todays standards.

Tim Robbins

Húrin wrote: »

I wanted to ask of this forum, has anyone else read a fascinating book called Straw Dogs by naturalist philosopher John Gray? He attempts to "formulate a view of the world without humans at the centre" (paraphrase from the introduction), and his main target in that book is humanism and other forms of popular contemporary thought. I don't agree with most of it and I don't think he argues flawlessly, but I find his views on many things to be quite realistic and readable.

Yeah I read it. It should be called straw man not straw dog. He uses his own definition of humanism and argues that. Instead he should of used something that has broad agreement as to what humanism is, such as the Amsterdam declaration which is what most humanist societies have signed up to. He didn't even mention the Amsterdam declaration which is just astounding as its indicative he's done no research and is just on a rant.

He also makes mad statements which he doesn't bother subtantiating. For example he says: Darwin contradicted scientific evidence at the time. huh?

Or crazy sweeping statements that technological progress always damages the environment. Solar panels, Hydro electro powers? Hello?

I thought it was like listening to someone with a bit of intelligence but was smoking dope talking a bit of nonsense rather than doing proper intellectual research into their points.

Tim Robbins

Húrin wrote: »

What makes you think that Jesus would be considered reprehensible? Many people hold him up as a great moral teacher to this day, and not just Christians.

Jesus was a preacher rather than a teacher.

He style of communication in the Gospel is full or argument by assertions: this is right because I say so and this is wrong because I say so.

If you want a more intellectual discussion of morality, go back 500 years and read Plato.

The socratic method of discourse is still accepted as an intellectual method of reasoning but was strangely omitted by Jesus, entirely. This is incredible as if we are to accept Christianity has some sort of intellectual basis and isn't just dogma, I would have expected to see the socratic method in use somewhere in the Bible. However the fact that isn't to me is further indication how ignorant all the various authors and Jesus (as described) were.

The original moral message (most of it appears syncretic) I see in the Gospels is that no matter how much someone beats you you should forgive even when they don't say sorry. I am not even sure if this is a good moral rule. You end up in all sorts of slippery slopes very quickly.