A CRITIQUE of MODERNISM: If a person from ancient times was transported to modern..

Eramen

.. society, what would be the first things he/she would notice about the way we live today and about our civilisation in general?

I have to admit, I've spent some time thinking about the above question as a form of analogy for making comparisons between our modern civilisations & peoples, to the ones of past centuries and times, both as a way of critiquing modern civilisation and also to see what direction we are going in. I thought the best way to understand the dynamics of change, of continuance and of differences would be to picture myself as a somewhat-learned ancient who lived in classical antiquity, who is skilled in his profession or craft; who arrives fresh from the experiences, thoughts and sounds of his own place and time, and makes a life for themselves in our world of today so as to see most clearly and directly the differences, similarities & criticisms between previous civilisations and our own one.

Of course, it would also work if we picture ourselves, as we are now, in a past society, but I think this route has been looked at more thoroughly by historians, amateurs and the interested than is the former. However, I believe that there is a heavy post-modern bias when making observations from this perspective, culminating in a air of 'modern superiority' that takes root in the argument. And so this is why I would like to look at this topic from the basis put forth in my suggested question.


After thinking for some time I came up with the following (in order to keep my posts a readable length I will post a couple at a time):


The absence of a consensus reality - First of all, when considering this point I think back to Confucius and his description of the ideal man and the state in relation to continuous self-betterment through a moral revaluation and the use of 'Ritual' as a means to achieving a new commonly understood reality and a supreme common good or 'the Way'. The ancient would come to understand our situation, being the absence of a consensus reality, very early on. Reality itself is questioned and is under fire. Relativism, materialism and new ageism is rampant, and the majority of people especially in political and religious/non-religious terms do not recognise a common reality, destiny, shared past, identity etc. They cannot do so because to some all reality is relativistic, being a 'social construct', there is no standard of good and evil, each being a different value to each person. What is evil to one may not be the same for the other. Others still, think of reality in a completely different sense, that it is shaped and defined in a fixed way, and that it can be fully known and articulated. Furthermore, this reality-standard is the same to all and can be applied to all ages, locations and people.

Our ancient of course would live life according to the latter view. Nowadays he would plainly see the problems of relativism, and the results of it. It is not stretching it to say that our societies have become deeply moralistic in the main, and yet paradoxically, many lack any meaningful moral convictions whatsoever, even treating such with scorn, all of which is indicative of massive social and cultural chaos. Modern society can be seen have no inherent ethics 'inbuilt' into the foundations of the society itself, thereby there is a lack of the most basic internal order that is derived even from the simplest virtues. It is not that virtue no longer exists, but that it is nullified by the never-ending criticisms of cultural post-modern thought.

Therefore, as we see today, our society and very way of life is constantly in need of a 'verification of purpose', usually because there is no clear purpose at all, and this 'purpose' (which changes with great frequency) is constantly reiterated and reinforced with altruisms, real or imagined. Constant appeals to civic duty are made as a source of morality, which usually ends up in more argumentative behaviour. Most worryingly, in this society where moral-self betterment and identification is shunned, it is now easy to demonstrate that all social & political dissent that were capable of introducing positive change are repeatedly crushed in the name of one morality or another.

The learned ancient would rightly pronounce that in an era of crying out for "Change", that real change, unlike the minor adjustments to the system being made today, can only come about once a real consensus reality has been achieved. Nothing will change at all without this.


Is currently popular Mass Culture the foremost barrier to a new consensus reality, and therefore to real change?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13dgLzmHsnM

Democratisation of knowledge & the lack of real education - Another revelation for the ancient as he walks through our world, would be that he sees the knowledges and it's techniques that we possess as being 'democratised': meaning that we are informed in a cultural sense today - through popular media, intellectuals, science - that 'anyone can do/learn/be/understand anything if we just but try and make an effort'. We are told in essence that any branch of knowledge or learning in theory is accessible to anyone, without prior training, knowledge or a natural ability.

It is my reasoning that a respectable ancient, much like Plato for instance, might take a position of innateism - that some are naturally more qualified through nature, supra-nature etc - because of superior talents, character and ability than another person for a particular thing. The physically strong, mentally disciplined, loving of hierarchy and order might make a perfect professional soldier for instance, over somebody in which these values are minimal. This is in clear contrast to the post-modern mindset where one can 'do anything' with no prerequisites.

Also it seems, after much testing of thought by the ancient, that authentic knowledge suffers under the strains of this 'massification' as described above. Actual science is reduced to popular interpretations, or mere techniques of measurement, and is only respected because of its contribution to industry & industrial capability i.e. to consumerism, convenience. For science to even retain the attention of the people, it must reduce itself to sensationalism, cure-alls and pseudo-scientific entertainment. Some sciences suffer as the mass rejects them as being less practical to daily convenience and therefore they are considered to be 'less valuable' to the mass of people. (you may think of some yourself, that's a debate in itself!).

Religion too also suffers. Once a carefully tested metaphysic that deals with man's higher needs and life-struggles, forging real meaning out of meaninglessness; this coupled with a realisation that 'cold hard reality' had to first to be metaphysically interpreted in order to be physically interpreted and so this is how reality is substantiated and verified. Thus arrives to us a universal Order through such mindful initiation. But through the centuries religion has also fell asunder: in the beginning the metaphysic was transferred from pure hypostatic ideas into more practical forms and narratives, retaining key meanings and symbolism throughout in a striving to help the adherent. Whereas in the modern world, 'religion' is only a shadow of its former self, reduced to archaic rituals, debauchery and the belief in 'the personal cloud god' to which one makes well-meaning demands from.

Plato too in his day rejected Greek polytheism for some of these reasons, insisting that these above occurrences were deterioration of authentic religion and a corrupting of that great infinite impersonal source, the One, from which all things emanated outward and in which all things are contained simultaneously.

In matters of education, especially if our ancient was educated in university in one of the Greek or Chinese schools of philosophy, he would surely pick out the inconsistencies and failings. It must be said that the civilisation in which we live does not encourage, stimulate, or prepare people to think critically. Ideas are 'massified', in the sense as outlined above; often distilled down to nothing more than popular stereotypes with which individuals cannot make an educated judgement or opinion about anything. Truth is fiction and fiction, truth - and many variations in-between.

The problem is that people then prostrate themselves before self-styled guru's and messianic leaders in an impressive display of crowd behaviour and mass psychological manipulations. Humans were not always this way (or not as much so), it is a recent development. Mass-culture, pop-culture epitomises a herd and crowd mentality in which people are divorced from reality and critical thinking. Rarely today do we hear an original idea, a person willing to seriously discuss and see things from different perspectives or even people who can verbally DESCRIBE an idea itself. I a simpler sense, education, real education as our ancient would have arguably received, is lacking.

Education today becomes the teaching of ever-changing (and not because they are 'evolving') , dispensable theories and techniques which are only to be emulated and copied in return for certain prescribed rewards - which are gained usually for material benefits.


Democratisation of knowledge, A metaphysical example.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBkskprAxNw

The product of modern 'education'?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzPT4GFA2YY

Social disunity as a norm - This is one of the first things that I think would be noted, the fact that nobody can seem to agree on anything, and that a goodly portion of moderns see this situation as something that is quite positive - whether disagreements be simply politics, moral standards, social lifestyles & environment, economic & governmental concerns etc. Our ancient might profess that while the ability to disagree is all well and good, the ability to unite on our collective societal ideal is so much more valuable and praiseworthy. There is no concept of a 'greater good' that is commonly recognised today, or at least that it is not uniform, nor can it even be defined on a conscious level by people in general.

This could stem from the fact that the social culture of Western post-modernism has long being veering into social-consumerism and 'individualism'. In the case of the former it can be observed that more and more social interactions are now dependant on economic/consumer activity rather than the including of the traditional forms of the past. In traditional society, culture & customs were inherently geared towards a 'greater good', that could be instantly agreed and defined by the vast majority of society. Such arrives to us the various ancient proverbs and axioms that our ancient would lovingly quote - it is a demonstration of a collective will and shared identity that is so essential to unity.

Today, because of the pressures of consumerism as a path to social prowess and the atomisation of people through an 'attained' individualism via the said consumerism and a myriad of minute, yet meaningless, social/political/morality differences, people cannot come to a logical agreement, much less see the common good as an absolute civil, social, even spiritual necessity.

Our ancient would see this as disastrous, as the socially/culturally deracinated masses become effectively powerless to change society/country in their favour via a social movement, as one can never exist without common definition. This is where a strong, united, and incredibly powerful political-economic elite is identified by the ancient, guiding and administering the large, listless numbers of the socially-disunited masses. They hold most positions of real leadership and authority. It can be seen that this small in-group usually acts as one and exerts its interests on a national and international level, and sometimes even at the expense of the common man. This elite would be much different from the elite of ancient times, needing no 'mandate from heaven', nor acceptance from any functional classes (priesthood, army, craftsmen, merchants etc) or guilds. The new elite confers authority on itself by virtue of its own economic immensity. It is subject to no higher universal power. All-in-all, it can be observed that this new elite actually tends to instil a culture of disunity among people in order to better serve their own interests.

Traditional Civilisation versus Post-Modernism: a normative era versus a civilisational crisis?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TmbkfTiLQ58

AhSureTisGrand

1. Everybody's much taller

2. People smell better and look less diseased

3. Hey look mechanical horses!

I'm sorry but I doubt the man from ancient times has heard of any of the concepts you mentioned, and has thought little to nothing about them

18AD

Eramen wrote: »

The learned ancient would rightly pronounce that in an era of crying out for "Change", that real change, unlike the minor adjustments to the system being made today, can only come about once a real consensus reality has been achieved. Nothing will change at all without this.

Interesting post. Good sharing!

I've only read the first section and it raised the following questions for me.

What is "real" change? Surely things are hugely different as compared to the situation of an 'ancient'.

I assume by real you mean a particular change towards an already assumed goal. Then, what goal is this? What would come about that would show that real change has occured?

Why is a consensus reality required for this at all? Surely the differences inherent in society are what causes the greatest amount of change in the first place. The reconciliation of these differences is what we might call progress rather than the unification of societal intent.

Then again, without any goal, we can't really be working towards anything, as a whole. We are left with individual or minority impulse driven goals.

HivemindXX

With regard to the 'Consensus Reality'. What age is this ancient from?

One tribe of hunter gatherers might 'know' that eating the heart and lungs of a great animal might give them strength. Another might 'know' that the solstice was the time for human sacrifice to appease the sun god.

A student of Plato would have a very different view of how the world worked than a peasant working the fields.

I think it was far more common for people to disagree on how the world worked than for them to agree. There was just far less contact between people who were geographically or socially distant from each other. Now we can easily be in the same virtual room as a fundamentalist Christian, a vegan animal rights activist, a neo-nazi white power extremist and a theoretical physicist. The fact that these already existant differing world views are now more easily exposed to each other is probably for the better.

Even if there was a monolithic view of reality how would that be a good thing? Let's say everyone believed witches put curses on people and crops and had to be found out by use of the ducking stool and other staples of the inquisition. How would we move on from that without people starting to disagree, causing a fragmentation of the consensus and eventually leading to a new consensus in which there are no witches.

Eramen

18AD wrote: »

Interesting post. Good sharing!

I've only read the first section and it raised the following questions for me.

What is "real" change? Surely things are hugely different as compared to the situation of an 'ancient'.

I assume by real you mean a particular change towards an already assumed goal. Then, what goal is this? What would come about that would show that real change has occured?

Why is a consensus reality required for this at all? Surely the differences inherent in society are what causes the greatest amount of change in the first place. The reconciliation of these differences is what we might call progress rather than the unification of societal intent.

Then again, without any goal, we can't really be working towards anything, as a whole. We are left with individual or minority impulse driven goals.

Thank you for your response 18AD!

I think in answering your question it's first best to bring up possibly the crux of where you and I would greatly differ; where you say:

18AD wrote: »

The reconciliation of these differences is what we might call progress rather than the unification of societal intent.

I would argue that it is the unification of principles (in a social and metaphysical sense) is what we might call progress, or probably more aptly, order. In the modern age I think 'progress' has become a euphemism of sorts for the triumph of post-modern intellectual circles in many fields of society, industry, science and thought. Whether actual progress is taking place, or - what is called progress - is debatable. I would point out the gross dehumanisation of man; the overruling via international commercial law of his natural properties (origin, family, sex, personality, character etc) in favour for his expression as a purely economic entity which is little more than a sum of his financial-economic utility. This is actually called progress today..

Untimely I think our mentality of progress vs order sums up our views about what is classified as real change. Progressivism (traditionally/in theory) is about bringing disparate groups together, and using this new coalition to reach a solution in regards to societal goals through compromise, and then trying to head in that direction. Order on the other hand recognises that to get anywhere in this sense, one has to have societal stability, and this is achieved through the definition of universal values which apply to all people and which is preserved through a functional social hierarchy. Only then can one propose a real goal or specific outcome.

Progressivism seems confused on what we should even aim for, which probably results from a moral relativism, as a diverse collection of ideas all fight for supremacy. Ultimately, in real terms, we observe that a powerful conglomerate of economic titans hijacked most of these tumultuous, disunited civilisations and use them for their own greedy ends. Some intellectuals have suggested that this latter happening was actually the real purpose of progressivism.

In order to have progress, society must have a system of ethics and values which are uniform (I am calling this order). Without which society becomes frail, moralistic, inherently weak and fractured in a social sense. This explains the triumph if sub-culture, as people really don't feel that they 'belong' in such a disparate society with no uniting principles. I would like to point out that I am not anti-progressivism, it is just that I feel that progressivism is weak as it refuses to accept or impose core values. I would also agree that progressivism has done some good. Yet the only value this ideology supposes to impose is the acceptance of any/all values, excepting the values that are intellectually anti-progressive. It is quite paradoxical and dishonest.

'Real change' might be considered to be a moving toward a fulfilment of the agreed purpose through virtuous action, and all this can only be built on a bedrock of common, universal values as stated above. You might say that I am 'dodging' the question upon what is 'real change' but that fact is that if I answer this via a material argument there will only be more disagreement.

For example if I said "real progress is gain another 10,000 hospital beds over the next 3 years", this is quite ephemeral, and doesn't really cut into what is real or not as regards to what is wrong with our society, or what is change.

Unity has always been the first step to real change. Unity through nobility, not unity through disunity!

A simple mechanics of change may be as follows:

1. The Universal (The agreed upon reality) --> 2. Building of Virtue & Ethics within the reality --> 3. Leading to a Common system of values --> 4. (Social/political etc) Order --> 5. Purpose of Society --> 6. Working for actual Change --> 7. Change

(4 and 5 can be interchangeable as we see from the past).

Eramen

AhSureTisGrand wrote: »

1. Everybody's much taller

2. People smell better and look less diseased

3. Hey look mechanical horses!

I'm sorry but I doubt the man from ancient times has heard of any of the concepts you mentioned, and has thought little to nothing about them

Thanks for your answer. In regards to what I mentioned I believe that an educated person from classical antiquity would recognise these concepts and could even add to them, create his own and differ with my view also. Much of our understanding of the world today through the realm of ideas is build upon the foundations of ancient thought, as well as other times and places. If we are to fully understand our present state, as in ideals, thoughts, politics, we have to first understand the historical aspect of it all!

Eramen

HivemindXX wrote: »

With regard to the 'Consensus Reality'. What age is this ancient from?

One tribe of hunter gatherers might 'know' that eating the heart and lungs of a great animal might give them strength. Another might 'know' that the solstice was the time for human sacrifice to appease the sun god.

A student of Plato would have a very different view of how the world worked than a peasant working the fields.

I stated in my post what the characteristics of 'my ancient' would be, I wasn't talking about hunter-gatherers.

HivemindXX wrote: »

I think it was far more common for people to disagree on how the world worked than for them to agree. There was just far less contact between people who were geographically or socially distant from each other. Now we can easily be in the same virtual room as a fundamentalist Christian, a vegan animal rights activist, a neo-nazi white power extremist and a theoretical physicist. The fact that these already existant differing world views are now more easily exposed to each other is probably for the better.

Even if there was a monolithic view of reality how would that be a good thing? Let's say everyone believed witches put curses on people and crops and had to be found out by use of the ducking stool and other staples of the inquisition. How would we move on from that without people starting to disagree, causing a fragmentation of the consensus and eventually leading to a new consensus in which there are no witches.

First of all, there is a difference between amorphous personal realities and the consensus reality. People can believe is all types of things, with their assorted beliefs, faiths, facts, 'facts', opinions etc. But much of the time this does not affect the consensus view of the group reality. The 'personal world' and 'consensus world' can intermingle and keep separate simultaneously. Often people believe their own version, or the version of reality promoted by their sub-culture etc but still it would not affect their dealings with the world at large, because they follow a consensus view on many facets of life.

For example, the consensus regarding 9/11 is that the twin towers in New York were hit by two planes, many people died, building 7 also collapsed, it left the people of New York emotionally shattered even to this day, it affected them economically for a time, but beyond this we get into personal realities. There is no consensus on the why, who, how? of 9/11. People believe changing and disparate things.

The same rationale can be applied to the Irish banking/economic crisis, the consensus is that we need 'change', but personal realities are so conflicting that a higher consensus reality, which would give us grounds for deliberate action coalescing into a movement, will not materialise any time soon.

Also disagreement is part of building the consensus view, but today the very fact that we can't agree and that we are 'forever different' is celebrated. The main thought-streams in the West (and spreading) argue that 'there is no reality', that it is relative from one person to the next. This is a recipe for disaster and is inherently disuniting and weak.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHMynmoCRNg

Musiconomist

Eramen wrote: »

.. society, what would be the first things he/she would notice about the way we live today and about our civilisation in general?

I agree with most of your points, I think. There is a huge disconnect in our society, which we are taught to believe is the norm and acceptable. Personally, I believe we are physically/mentally geared to live in villages and walk everywhere. Obviously this clashes with the modern world.

It appears that nobody considers society critically, or if they do, arent paid attention to. One issue that springs to my mind, is overpopulation.

This is an issue that most know will affect the world sooner rather than later, but not only is it not being addressed, it's not seriously being discussed.

I dont know if people can ever devise a system of living which will be in balance with everyone's needs/view/ideals. Dont get me wrong, the world as it is, isnt too bad. But our approach to it needs to be critical, logical and careful.

I feel that our future is too important to leave in the hands of politicians.

HivemindXX

You stated that the first thing an ancient would notice would be the absence of a consensus reality but then gave multiple examples to show that peoples personal beliefs do not affect our consensus reality.

Can you clearly show how this was present in ancient times and is not now?

Eramen

HivemindXX wrote: »

You stated that the first thing an ancient would notice would be the absence of a consensus reality

I said that the particular ancient I am relating to would notice this absence very early on, not the very first thing. He would notice the material changes of modernity first. My point of focus is on the cultural and intellectual aspects of modernism that this ancient would notice, though others are free to point out anything he would notice, of whatever origin.

HivemindXX wrote: »

but then gave multiple examples to show that peoples personal beliefs do not affect our consensus reality.

What I gave an example of is of how there is a personal reality, and then the consensus reality (the part of the reality that can be agreed on by the vast majority). I illustrated how these exist through the above particular examples.

Yet, when looking at the consensus reality in relation to social, moral, religious, political, economic etc. aspects, we can see that there is no tangible consensus on these issues, which is a rarity and an exception in the history of civilisations - which is exactly my original point of interest.

HivemindXX wrote: »

Can you clearly show how this was present in ancient times and is not now?

I've already shown the intellectual basis for it, material examples aren't hard to figure out.

"Natural Reason tells us that because of the inadequacies we perceive in ourselves we need to subject ourselves to some superior source of help and direction; and whatever that source might be, everybody calls it God." - Thomas Aquinas

This used to be the consensus reality for the longest time from which all things derived. Let me clear up confusion though: I'm not trying to highlight 'God' here; what I am highlighting is the universal value from which everything else proceeds from and from which they gain their value. For instance, the universals, the virtues, ethics, humaneness, ritual, good, all flow from a superior point of reality to a pre-modern person. The value of something was based on the inherent rightness and goodness of the thing or person.

Today this doesn't exist as there is no fixed higher values; all is relative, all is a social construct. Get my drift?

Dostoyevsky was correct when he surmised the dilemma of man, and his 'secret' and especially applied it to modern people:


"The secret of man's being is not only to live but to have something to live for."

This is to say: without an absolute value, nothing can have value, everything becomes equally valueless. Man can only find meaning through such value. Therefore there can be no practical consensus on anything in a hotch-potch of meaninglessness, just like the situation today. A common system of values is missing.

Jess16

As a traditionalist, I firmly believe that the loss of old world values in favour of the instant gratification society we live in today is to our huge detriment

18AD

Eramen wrote: »

1. The Universal (The agreed upon reality) --> 2. Building of Virtue & Ethics within the reality --> 3. Leading to a Common system of values --> 4. (Social/political etc) Order --> 5. Purpose of Society --> 6. Working for actual Change --> 7. Change

(4 and 5 can be interchangeable as we see from the past).

Sorry for taking so long to reply.

This first point is where I think the problem arises. There has never been an agreed upon reality. This has been the focus of so much discussion and theorising from times immemorial.

EDIT: In fact, any large group agreeing on reality is more than likely going to be actively oppressive. One could proceed healthily ommitting this and jumping straight to ethics and virtue as the first step.

Are you talking about a metaphysical reality?

On a personal note, I think a homogenous society would be a tremendous state of monotonous boredom.

swordofislam

In the year 500 BC the following people were alive:
Leonidas,
Sun Tzu,
Buddha

I don't accept that these people had a common worldview.

Eramen

swordofislam wrote: »

In the year 500 BC the following people were alive:
Leonidas,
Sun Tzu,
Buddha

I don't accept that these people had a common worldview.

They didn't, but then again they lived in worlds apart keeping in mind that time-period. World-view is not independent of culture, customs, language, geography etc, instead they are built on these very things. Therefore their outlook could never have been the same. But this is not what 'consensus reality' is.

People in in 19th century Prussia would have had a general common world outlook, and this would be a consensus reality as far as one can be achieved considering the time and place. Consensus reality is general, not total; there is always room for opinions, but not so much that society has its core values split and ripped apart because of reoccurring disagreement/moral in-fighting as is the case today, Pro-Life/Abortion, Pro-political Homosexuality/against, racism/anti-racism, atheism/religion, welfare state/family state, public/private property, etc.

These 'disagreements' have always existed, but today they are a total hindrance to the common interest of all in society and blown out of proportion, therefore no progress can be made in a social sense and the reason why there is a serious breakdown in this respect.

Today, the absence of a consensus reality can be attributed to the rife moralizations/moralisms that afflict society and people in the main, with everyone having their own self-centred and person-specific views on everything based not on logic, reason, facts, truth, the mutual good, but on greed, selfishness, superficial politics, and moralization.

Leonidas, SUN TZU, and Siddharta had differing value systems, therefore a different world-view. This can be forgiven since they lived in different civilisations and societies.

The problem is that people who live in our/the SAME SOCIETY today do not have the same values.. and in societies in the past where the same situation perpetuated this has nearly always led to the obliteration of that society. Society cannot function anymore with core-values that can no longer be applied to all. Some examples of the results of fluctuating/conflicting values that are seen in Ireland/West might be state-welfarism, lack of confidence/participation in political system, multiculturalism, moral panics (example, abortion issue), distrust of the general public by the individual, isolation from neighbours/community in housing estates etc.

Today, without the general consensus world-view, there is no longer any society, no social value or acceptance, just a collection of sub-communities/cultures/societies operating in opposition to each other, chronically and decrementally polarised in politics, class-culture, past-times, morality, and only kept together in any fashion whatsoever by pure economic necessity. See 'Modern society'.

swordofislam

TLDR Values change over time
The larger size of modern societies makes the comparison meaningless



But how can you demonstrate that the examples you give are in any way indicative of an absence of core values as opposed to simply new core values with which you do not agree?

I think you could also ask what is a society?
Was the Greek world a single society in say 450 BCE? If so it had a great deal of diversity in core values.
If the societies that you speak of in ancient times are smaller; say not the Greek world as a whole (fewer people than Ireland today in 450 BCE) but rather say Athens, Syracuse, Sparta, Corinth etc. These are microsocieties tiny by comparison with the modern society and you are falling victim to a linguistic trick.
Sparta 450 BCE
Ireland 2012 CE
Two 'societies' but so different in size and membership that the word fails.

What were the core values of Athens, Syracuse or Corinth in the period 490 - 390 BCE all had massive shifts in the nature of the society and the permitted freedom.