Is society being intentionally 'dumbed down'?

kowloon wrote: »

Audrina Proud Mice wrote: »

Okay so, in direct response to your OP.



[font=&quot]You start your argument with a statement wondering what has happened to education, culture and art. The answer to this is quite easy. Progress. You contended earlier that this is not an argument or debate about technology versus art, but it is my contention that the two are inextricably linked. Arguably the greatest influence and propagator of art, history, culture, education and learning since the era that you have mentioned is the advent of the printed word and printed media in general. If you want to pinpoint exactly where the mass media stemmed from it was when a dude in Germany in the late 15th century came up with a way of getting his message out to more people. If this is not the first act in mass media, then I am not sure what it can be. And he did it to make money (even if he didn’t). How would you me or anyone else beyond the immediate people of the era have known about the great works without the propagation of them by the media. [/font]



[font=&quot]The next argument you make is that if people would stop watching mainstream TV it would be a start. A start to what, exactly? You seem to be contending that mainstream TV is the root of all that is wrong with society and if only people would just educate themselves to a “reasonable level” all would be well. Well, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. What would you propose a reasonable level is – primary, secondary, third level, higher? Most all of people in western society are educated to secondary level and can for the most part read and write, something that was far less prevalent 500 years ago. [/font]



And that is their choice. Do you honestly, for one second, believe that every person that lived 500 odd years ago spent their idle hours in deep thought considering the meaning of existence and the human condition. Certainly not. The proletariat have always been the layer of society that does the work and then spends the rest of their time living. If we spent our time contemplating the darkest crevices of the human mind to endeavour more into artistic ends, who would make the clothes you wear or the food you eat. Not everyone is cut out to think the same way not everyone is cut out to do certain things. I could spend all day talking to you about the intricacies of polymer bonding but wouldn’t be able to draw a half decent stick man. That is not where my talent lies. Therefore I see no need to spend leisure time – which I fill with leisure activities – attempting to generate Monet-esque art. Do you?



I (well partially at least) agree with you here that society has gone this way, but Steven (regulars will get this one) seems to be taking a little away from this. I am not sure what the rest of your argument is trying to say. Are you saying that advertising is designed to try and get us to do something? That’s not exactly a newsflash. But here is the kicker – we have a choice, you can choose to not watch “American Gladiators”.


Good for you mate and if that is how you want to live your life that is perfectly fine. But if you make that decision of need versus want, you wouldn’t be making an argument over the internet. There are 3 or 4 basic needs to live – food, water, clothing, shelter and perhaps companionship. Everything else is a want or a nicety.


He also said “Change is one thing, progress is another. "Change" is scientific, "progress" is ethical; change is indubitable, whereas progress is a matter of controversy”



You really didn’t say any of this in your OP. Your argument is confounded through several different tired “radical” ideas. You start by suggesting things were better artistically 500 years ago. Then you go on to say people should stop watching mainstream TV. Next is to say that people are afraid to think for themselves. The next is to contend that mass media is organised to placate the masses and finally to say that you ask whether you need or want something. I suggest you reread it yourself.

Sorry for the novel folks.

Yore ma!

stevejazzx wrote: »

I'm not sure I see your point; how do we know about anything earlier than the 15th century? I'm not sure what you're proposing here but I know it can't be that that's when you believe records started being kept properly? On the subject of technology and art being 'inextricably linked', how exactly? Historically they weren't and in modern times I think that art is possible using technology (Pixar! are one example) but I can't see how they are inextricably linked?







A start to giving themselves more time to think? The start could be just the act of freeing themselves from the white noise of junk TV. By reasonable level, and I appreciate it's vague, I meant that people should be competent enough to understand the fundamentals on a basic level. The fundamentals being evolution & human behavior/interaction. I think a lot of social issues are caused by ignorance and therefore misunderstanding. Racism for example, is a problem that could be completely eradicated if people really understood evolution.





I think you are missing a number of points here.
1) I didn't suggest some Utopian society existed 500 years but rather that art enjoyed a flourishment not equaled since.
2) In relation to the 'who would make all clothes argument?' - we have too much excess where don't need it and shortages where we do. The equilibrium of our supposed moral societies is is strongly out of kilter. I don't think we can estimate what we actually need to survive because excess in the western is now part of how live. Suggesting that people are being dumbed down is not a call for workers to give up their Jobs to become artists but for everyone to take notice of where are they and what they are actually doing, are they attempting to fulfill themselves etc. If not maybe they should possibly look into it? That's all I was saying really.
3) In relation to the 'not everyone is made to think argument'. Well this may be somewhat true but it doesn't mean that their existence should be taken up with mind numbing labor or zombie like consumerism. As trite and clichéd as it might sound there are far more fulfilling activities available than walking around a shopping mall for 5 hours transfixed by shiny products and bright colors.
4) How to spend leisure time argument. If I am understanding you right then what you are suggesting is that after work you like chill out? that's possibly an over simplification but I'm not disagreeing either way. The caveat is that at some point humans should really be looking into self improvement through education and art. I believe it's what the enlightenment is all about and it seems to me it's the one thing that can make people truly happy. I think people have an unique sense of achievement when doing something artistic like playing an instrument writing a book, learning a new skill or subject or even how to cook. These are all things which improve us as humans and yes, we have fight to keep them alive.



I'm trying to say that people should wake up from accepting this as a norm, a standard - as something which 'just is' because society has to be a certain way and this is just the way it is. It doesn't have to be and people can chose to not be a part of the machine. But choice is not so simple for many. You make a great underestimation if you think that choice is something that lingers freely within our grasp. Our choices are always being limited and manipulated. Some folks simply don't know any better or even that there is any better. Choice for them has a different context and meaning.



This is rubbish tbh. I'm not advocating vagrancy as a means to spiritual purity - selling everytihng I own and moving to Tibet. I am advocating people getting a grasp of their own 'selves' for better or for worse. The 'needs' aspect is all about not wasting time and money on trivilaties. We're all guilty of it, I'm saying it's time to stop. A computer as part of modern existence is hardly triviality even if it is sometimes used for such.



I'm glad you've highlighted the one thing that we're not making, progress - with inevitable exclusion of science of course. Unfortunately, because Scientific progress is so vast, it appears as if the human race as a whole is progressing and it somewhat 'lets us off the hook' but there are just too many areas where we are falling drastically short; art culture being those most affected.



I'm not concerned whether or not the idea is original. I feel it's worth saying. I expect nothing more than the shooting down of basic truth and the straw man opposition. It's not easy to look at it face on. It's much easier to pretend that you're waiting on a more radical expression of societal contempt before you're willing to pull the fluff out from between your ears and do something. In the meantime best to just fall into line, pay the piper, sing the tune and go on your merry way.

netwhizkid wrote: »

So does that mean it is okay for me to make an arse related comment in rebuttal to that then?