World War 1 - the spectre of appalling savagery and loss of life in the heart of Europe; and the subsequent discovery of relativity and quantum physics, which undermined faith in the mechanistic model of the universe that had reigned after Newton.

‘Things fall apart
The centre cannot hold’

~W B Yeats. — Wayfarer

You know your history well! Kudos to you. As for me, my memory ain't what it used to be.

Just out of curiosoty, do you like the modernism-postmodernism transition that has taken place? Why?

. "Meaning" denotes relevance derived from context; the only constant in our civilizational context is accelerando (towards extinction or apotheosis?) — 180 Proof

I should also add, the only forms of ‘apotheosis’ that Western liberal individualism can imagine are either the indefinite prolongation of existence through medical science, or through inter-stellar travel. I think the fantasy of interstellar travel is clearly the sublimated longing for Heaven. But I also don’t think it will ever be realised.

Just out of curiosoty, do you like the modernism-postmodernism transition that has taken place? Why? — TheMadFool

It’s not a matter of liking or disliking - as everyone says nowadays, it is what it is. What I’ve always questioned, though, is the presumption of materialism, which is writ large in modern culture, generally. At the same time, I don’t belong to the hereditary faith that I was born into, hence the patchwork of ideas I advocate here, drawn in from various sources.

That's the question. — Wayfarer

"...towards extinction or apotheosis?" samsara or nirvana? Yes both.

I would have thought that development of an economic and social philosophy NOT based on consumerism and acquisition might be of vital importance. — Wayfarer

Then you'd be wrong again! Science can easily sustain capitalism - by harnessing limitless amounts of clean energy from magma. This isn't possible for unreformed ideologues; sovereign nation states jealous of their interests, who didn't reform because the Church made sure people believed that science isn't true, and doesn't describe reality. God does!

So ideologues continued, unreformed in relation to science as truth, but using science to achieve their primitive ends - until humankind stands on the brink of extinction. But because ideologues still do not value a scientific understanding of reality, even now, they cannot encompass the reality of limitless amounts of clean energy from magma - that could be used to produce endless electricity, hydrogen fuel, for desalination and irrigation, carbon capture and sequestration, recycling - providing for a prosperous and sustainable future.

There remains a chance - a slim chance, that we could recognise this error, and so create a justifying political rationale for the application of technology on the basis of scientific merit, and your proscription is some kind of communism. You make me sick.

I think the fantasy of interstellar travel is clearly the sublimated longing for Heaven. — Wayfarer

This is probably, more or less, what one hominid grunt-gestured to the prettier one next to him while watching another group of hominids trek on out of Africa... Grouchy luddite, aren't you? :smirk:

("For fuck sake, they tamed fire and now eat cooked (burnt) instead of raw ... and there goes the bloody neighborhood!")

:rofl:

It’s not a matter of liking or disliking — Wayfarer

Well said! Nevertheless, there are people, like me for example, who can't help but judge matters based on our own weltanschaunngs.

as everyone says nowadays, it is what it is — Wayfarer

I feel that's what pulls at our heart strings and some begin to wish that things were different or others hope that things stay the same.

Perhaps, your attitude - unwillingness to pass judgment - is an indication of an understanding of the situation I'm, for better or worse, not privy to. Care to share?

materialism, which is writ large in modern culture, — Wayfarer

That is a problem and, like it or not, Dostoevsky's warning - if God doesn't exist, everything is permitted - as a representative of the general sentiment of distrust and regret in re the materialistic turn culture has undergone, has become a prophecy that's on the verge of being fulfilled. I suppose it can't be helped - there's scant evidence for anything other than matter & energy (materialism); nevertheless, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

patchwork of ideas I advocate here, drawn in from various sources. — Wayfarer

As far as ideas go, eclecistism is among the best! Having the best of both worlds or rather the best of all possible worlds is always going to pay handsomely if you know what I mean.

Dostoevsky's warning - if God doesn't exist, everything is permitted — TheMadFool

Wrong again!

Morality comes from human beings - from evolution within a tribal context. Moral behaviours were advantageous to the tribe, in competition with other tribes, and advantageous to the individual within the tribe.

Astonishing that neither Nietzsche nor Dostoevsky reasoned that man must have raised generation after generation of young; even if we forgive them not knowing that even chimpanzees have social hierarchy and moral order of sorts, this would seems fairly obvious - except to someone who truly believes that religion is the well spring of morality, and disproven by evolution - implies there's no morality.

Well, there is. Most fundamentally, it's an innate sensibility.

Wrong again! — counterpunch

You would know, right?

Morality comes from human beings - from evolution within a tribal context. Moral behaviours were advantageous to the tribe, in competition with other tribes, and advantageous to the individual within the tribe. — counterpunch

That's an explanation but I'm sure you wouldn't go so far as to say that's the explanation, no? Morality, if you haven't already noticed, is human-exclusive i.e. only humans seem to possess it in degrees that would qualify morality as a distinct entity. Put that in the context of consciousness, again something distinctly human but, more importantly, as of yet inexplicable by modern science. There's a clear link between the two - consciousness & morality - and that, to me, points to morality's origins beyond anything theories such as your sociological one posits.

You would know, right? — TheMadFool

Yes. I would.

That's an explanation but I'm sure you wouldn't go so far as to say that's the explanation, no? — TheMadFool

Yes. I would.

Morality, if you haven't already noticed, is human-exclusive i.e. only humans seem to possess it in degrees that would qualify morality as a distinct entity. — TheMadFool

No. It's not. As I already said, even chimpanzees have a moral order of sorts. What's most distinct about human morality is that it is intellectually articulated. Explicit, as opposed to embedded in the hierarchical structures of the tribe.

...so the rest of your post is moot!

Yes. I would. — counterpunch

Hate to break it to you but no, you wouldn't! Sorry!

No. It's not. As I already said, even chimpanzees have a moral order of sorts. What's most distinct about human morality is that it is intellectually articulated. Explicit, as opposed to embedded in the hierarchical structures of the tribe.

...so the rest of your post is moot! — counterpunch

Are you saying a chimpanzee society is equivalent to human society in re morality? Let's set aside the fact that chimpanzees are our closest cousins which would, in a sense, imply that we should have some things in common for the moment. Is it true that chimpanzee societies are morally alike to human socieities? Before you answer that question, consider the differences in cognitive capacities between chimps and humans - do you really believe chimps analyze anything, let alone ethics, in the way and at the level humans do? The answer is obviously, "no". Doesn't that difference mean anything at all to chimp ethics and human ethics? The answer here too is evidently, "no". I rest my case!

Hate to break it to you but no, you wouldn't! Sorry! — TheMadFool

That's fine: after all - wadda you know?

By your own admission - fuck all!

I rest my case! — TheMadFool

That's fine: after all - wadda you know? — counterpunch

Yes, we can agree on something at least!

By your own admission - fuck all! — counterpunch

That's an attitude I don't recommend - it would be like mistaking a stop in your journey with your destination.

I gave the matter some thought and a coupla points I want to discuss.

1. William Lane Craig, not someone a philosopher might want to cite, said in a debate that self-awareness, knowing that you exist, amplifies suffering (hyperalgesia, allodynia) and I recall mentioning it somewhere that that's the key to morality - our suffering magnified by our sense of self, we begin to, or more accurately we're forced to, think about right and wrong (morality). Animals, most of them, lack self-awareness and even among those we've determined are self-aware are only so in very rudimentary ways. Thus, morality can't be a matter of simple biology common to all animals - it needs a special, secret ingredient which is a level of consciousness that permits self-awareness to the degree found in humans or higher if such is possible. In short, morality may bud in animals, some of them, but it'll bloom only in the human mind or those blessed/cursed, I can never tell, with higher consciousness.

2. The usual way morality is explained by the theory of evolution is by demonstrating how, for example, altruism benefits the altruistic individual. I was quite happy with this answer until I realized that this basically means altruism = selfishness - that's like taking a white object and claiming that the whiteness is an illusion, that it's actually black. Granted that there's merit in such an approach for it brings to the fore paradoxes which to my reckoning lies at the heart of most/all issues that humans get involved in. For some reason I love paradoxes but that's a topic for another discussion. Anyway, did you notice what evolutionary biologists did there when they "explained" goodness (altruism) - it was achieved only by making the good (altruism) = bad (selfish). Yet, deep down, we can feel it in our hearts, we know something's off about it, our hearts (feelings) don't share our mind's (rationality) convictions that morality has now been explained by evolutinary theory. This uncertainty, this doubt, this discontenment, this tension between morality and the "explanation" for morality speaks volumes as far as I'm concerned. Something doesn't add up!

I gave the matter some thought and a coupla points I want to discuss. — TheMadFool

I've been thinking about this for years, and I've done a fair bit of reading on it - and it makes no sense to me, or to the facts, to consider morality exclusively human, or even the consequence of conscious thought - not least because, if human beings were amoral brutes, as Nietzsche and Dostoevsky allude, we'd have wiped ourselves out.

William Lane Craig, not someone a philosopher might want to cite, said in a debate that self-awareness, knowing that you exist, amplifies suffering (hyperalgesia, allodynia) and I recall mentioning it somewhere that that's the key to morality - our suffering magnified by our sense of self, we begin to, or more accurately we're forced to, think about right and wrong (morality). — TheMadFool

In chimpanzee society, they share food and groom each other. But they also remember who reciprocates, and withhold such favours from those who don't reciprocate, to encourage social cooperation. The same arguments play out in human civilisation with regard to taxation and welfare.

Animals, most of them, lack self-awareness and even among those we've determined are self-aware are only so in very rudimentary ways. Thus, morality can't be a matter of simple biology common to all animals - — TheMadFool

Social animals tend to have moral behaviours, like meerkats for example. They live in big burrows, and some will stand guard while others forage, and issue warnings of the approach of predators.

2. The usual way morality is explained by the theory of evolution is by demonstrating how, for example, altruism benefits the altruistic individual. — TheMadFool

Sharing food, standing guard - are examples of altruistic behaviour, and the benefit is in reciprocation. Reciprocation is what makes moral behaviour an evolutionary advantage in the struggle to survive and breed.

Yet, deep down, we can feel it in our hearts, we know something's off about it, our hearts (feelings) don't share our mind's (rationality) convictions that morality has now been explained by evolutionary theory. — TheMadFool

I could not disagree more....at least, not without risk of being banned for the kind of language I'd need to use to adequately express how much I disagree! I don't know of anyone else saying morality is a sense - like humour or aesthetics. But it's in how we react: That's funny. You look great. That's wrong! We just know, instinctively.

Further, if you look to Piaget - and infant development in psychology, again, we get a lot of ingrained moral behaviours, like sharing between infants, when one is given less than the other. Are you suggesting that all infants, somehow reason this out?

No! Morality predates human intellect in evolution history, and predates moral education of the individual. Morality is an innate sense; drilled into us by evolution. I found something that might help:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/freedom-learn/201809/infants-instincts-help-share-and-comfort

Incidentally when you read Don Quixote 1605, you find a book that is like a post-modern pastiche, dripping with irony and self-reflexivity. It could almost be John Barth (except readable). — Tom Storm

:up:

With many positions on modernity and the individual, can one say they are indifferent? Some philosophers say we are still living in modernity, for some we are in post-modernity, some say we were never modern. — Warren

I don't think it makes much sense to ask if we as individuals or on the whole are modern, postmodern or neither. They're more historical eras in which particular modes of thought disrupted or dominated.

With that in mind, I'd say, yes, Western societies are in a postmodern era: metanarratives are declining, ethics are becoming contextualised, absolute concepts of truth given increasingly over to putative ones (modelling) and embedded ones (facts).

There is obviously huge resistance to this, a reassertion of archaic concepts and values which act as both defenses and rallying points. But that resistance is itself a defining feature of the postmodern era: even if modernism won the war, it was still challenged.

There's also post-truth, the wayward child of modernism and postmodernism in which logical fallacy is foundational, fact and fiction are equal, and truth is what you assert it to be. There's also resistance to this, so maybe we're out of postmodernism now and in the post-truth era. I think an argument against this is that there is every reason to doubt that post-truthers believe what they say, rather they are opportunistic hypocrites who elevate anything that is useful to them and throw shade on anything that is not, e.g. the Republican party.

I've been thinking about this for years — counterpunch

Sorry to hear that! I'm sure the pay-offs will make up for the time lost consumed.

it makes no sense to me, or to the facts, to consider morality exclusively human — counterpunch

I didn't imply that though it looks like I said it. Sorry for the confusion - I'm not a 100%. You know the feeling, right? See vide infra:

In short, morality may bud in animals, some of them, but it'll bloom only in the human mind or those blessed/cursed, I can never tell, with higher consciousness. — TheMadFool

we'd have wiped ourselves out. — counterpunch

This I brooded over deeply. Do you know what deep time or geological time is? I'm sure you do. A particular event needn't occur at human time scales. The Aravalli range in Northwest India were allegedly, at one time, higher than the himalayas, the current record holder for highest peaks, also found in India. The Aravallis experienced erosion over millions of years and their peaks were reduced to hills. The point to this being, we no doubt haven't "...wiped ourselves out" but are we...wiping ourselves...er...out? The difference between my point of view and yours is that between someone who leaves the theater in the middle of a movie and thinks the movie is over and someone who waits for the movie to end. Premature...er...ejaculation.!

I could not disagree more....at least, not without risk of being banned for the kind of language I'd need to use to adequately express how much I disagree! — counterpunch

Feel free to express yourself. Not for me though, you might learn something about yourself and that might be a good thing.

What you need to understand is that, looking at it in another way,

1. A theory that explains everything explains nothing. Your idea about tribal existence and others of that ilk all boil down to explaining both good and evil under one overarching theory which is just another way of saying, "my theory can explain everything." I'm sure you realized that the moment I showed you how atruism (good) is "explained" by the theory of evolution as ultimately serving a selfish (bad) purpose. Enough said!

2. An "explanation" such as above fails to do justice to an issue that's real as the letters on your screen, the issue of right and wrong. Morality is the one thing we care about deeply - ethics of this, ethics of that, so on - and yet there are no clear-cut guidelines on how to be a good person. I don't know how children in this day and age are faring but we were left to the mercy of our parents, friends, and the occasional teacher who cared.

Along comes science and its lackeys if I may refer to them like that and we're sent a notice that morality has been "explained" and how? By showing good is an illusion, it's actually bad e.g. altruism is "actually" selfish. I don't deny that such an explanation doesn't make sense, it does but, it fails to address what's the core issue - our minds are trying their best to conceive of a world in which altruism can't be somehow manipulated and made to fit into the box of selfishness. This, if nothing else, brings out the fundamental difference between mind and body - the former has more freedom than the latter and it shows in how we can conceive of, albeit only imperfectly, a world in which altruism isn't selfish all the while living in a world in which it is.

Just an old modern, I think. — 180 Proof

Perhaps. Pre-enlightenment, anyway.

it makes no sense to me, or to the facts, to consider morality exclusively human, or even the consequence of conscious thought — counterpunch

The sense I make of it is the OT mythological sense. I read the story of the Fall as a psychological explanation - a fall out of the 'state of nature', where a lion or a monkey will be selfish or unselfish as its nature dictates, but always without consideration of what they ought to do or be. "They saw they were naked and were ashamed." - saw, that is, that they ought not be naked. The self awareness that leads to a moral choice is what we ancients take to be the difference between the human and animal. It is a psychological difference, that leaves the natural world innocent because ignorant. The possibility of virtue must arise at the same time as the possibility of vice as a dilemma, and because it is founded on a psychological awareness, also as a fall from innocence as the default. Hence it is is a tree of 'knowledge', the fruit of which leaves one expelled from the paradise of just being and doing into a mind-world of ought not and ought to do, and of moral judgement.