This is a common, and flawed, defense. — Foghorn

Is it? Please show me an example, and explain in what ways it is flawed. And could you do so without emojis? I'm not a teenage girl!

Please show me an example, and explain in what ways it is flawed. — counterpunch

I already did that by demonstrating that scientists too are capable of making questionable decisions.

Scientists are people. People tend to be FUBAR.

I'm not a teenage girl! — counterpunch

You're not??? Really? Rats!! Look at all this time I've wasted! No smilies for you!

***

The salient point is people disparage science and aren't interested in the subject - I find that interesting in a so called science obsessed society. — Tom Storm

Because mostly, what there is is actually scientism, not science. And many people rightly recognize it as such, and disparage it.
Somehow, science doesn't seem to have the power to undo scientism.

Scientists are people. People tend to be FUBAR. — Foghorn

*facepalm*

My point is that, despite the fact that many more ppl died young in olden times, nevertheless, those who did survive enjoyed a richer culture, and I question the validity of the argument that science is undeniably good simply because it increases physical prosperity and longevity. — Todd Martin

Basically, would you agree with something like this:
As more people survive past childhood and live well into their 70's, human life and culture have become cheap, flat, superficial, lacking deeper meaning and value; lacking opportunity for true heroism and grit; commodities that are only meant to be consumed and then discarded.

--?

Western civilization according to Spengler aims at the infinite. It's characteristic nature is "will to power". It wasn't until the early 20 the century, philosophers realized that it will all come to an end. Our fields of knowledge will be exhausted and our arts will simply be a recombination of historical art forms. Western civilization will die in the next 200 years and a Cesarean form of government will take control over it. Just as the Islamic Civilization died after the siege of Baghdad, the Gothic civilization will also die.

The destruction of traditions , low birth rate, all time high depression, poor economy, immigration, racial tensions, late capitalism are all symptoms of a collapse

Basically, would you agree with something like this:
As more people survive past childhood and live well into their 70's, human life and culture have become cheap, flat, superficial, lacking deeper meaning and value; lacking opportunity for true heroism and grit; commodities that are only meant to be consumed and then discarded. — baker

Yes, I would agree with all that, Mr. Baker. But I would emend “into their 70s” to read “into their 80s and even 90s.” I live with a woman in her late 80s who shows little sign of slowing down anytime soon. I work for a local nonagenarian couple: he is 95, ran to the opposite side of his ship to avoid incoming Kamikaze in the South Pacific; she is 90 and works her garden every day, lifts the other side of a heavy piece of furniture to move it whithersoever we will, feeds me lunch and takes up whatever tasks her invalid husband can no longer perform. The 80s and 90s are the new 70s and 80s...

...but what is an extra decade added onto an already long life? This was one of Socrates’ calculations when he chose to die at the ripe young age of 70. I was told by @Fooloso4 that this opinion of both Xenophon and Allan Bloom—that Socrates calculated his old age as a part of the reason he chose to die—was “not to be taken at face value”, ie, that it was part of some esoteric teaching; I pointed out to him, however, that 70 years were considered to be the “years of a man” in the Old Testament. But I failed to point out to him that, of the two contemporary philosopher-authors of Socrates, Xenophon is the least esoteric.

Bloom writes, “Xenophon tells how Socrates responded to Antiphon, the Sophist, who was trying to attract his companions or students away from him by claiming Socrates’ life was not a happy one, particularly because of his great poverty...

““Antiphon, as another man gets great pleasure from a good horse, or a dog, or a bird, I get even more pleasure from good friends. And if I have something good I teach it to them, and I introduce them to others who will be useful to them with respect to virtue. And together with my friends I go through the treasures of the wise men of old which they left behind written in books, and we peruse them. If we see something good, we pick it out and hold it to be a great profit, if we are able to prove useful to one another.””

“Xenophon comments, “When I heard this, I held Socrates to be really happy...” (Memorabilia, I 6).

“How naive! It is a naïveté we would do well to recover. But, oh, the difficulty of it! Rousseau understood this very well:

““Our bombastic lapidary style is good only for inflating dwarfs. The ancients showed men as they are naturally, and one saw that they were men. Xenophon, honoring the memory of some warriors who were killed during the retreat of the ten thousand, says, “They died irreproachable in war and in friendship.” That is all. But consider what must have filled the author’s heart in writing this short and simple eulogy. Wow unto him who does not find that entrancing!””

“Rousseau’s observation is even more appropriate to this passage, the only one in the writings of Xenophon, who had experienced so much and seen so many illustrious men in action, where he calls a man happy.”


Along with “cheap, flat, superficial, lacking deeper meaning and value”, I would add “coarse, vulgar and ostentatious”...

... I used to be a skilled roller-skater in the artistic style, 3-turns, spins on either foot, one-turn leaps, etc. I once visited an out-of-town rink and found there a fellow who was jealous of my skills. I suppose he was considered to be the local prodigy, and to do me one better, performed a backwards flip in which he landed safely upon his skates, followed by acclamation and applause of his friends. But despite this stunt, his style was rough and coarse and lacked general skill and subtlety. He seems to me to be a paradigm of the modern artist.

But I failed to point out to him that, of the two contemporary philosopher-authors of Socrates, Xenophon is the least esoteric. — Todd Martin

But as the commentaries by Bloom's teacher Leo Strauss show, Xenophon was deeply ironic. that is to say, he cannot not simply be taken at face value. But Strauss said:

The problem inherent in the surface of things, and only in the surface of things, is the heart of things.

To get below the surface you have to be able to see the surface.

A funny story told by Seth Benardete a friend of Bloom's and fellow student of Strauss:

He was heading home after a conference with Stanley Rosen and Allan Bloom in the car. Bloom spotted some deer by the side of the road. They stopped the car. Bloom wanted to get out to see them. He asked: "Do you think they'll attack if I got out and approach them?" And Rosen said: "I don't think they've read Closing of the American Mind".

:lol:

Western civilization according to Spengler aims at the infinite. — Wittgenstein

Aims at displacing God with science, more like it.

I would agree with all that, Mr. Baker — Todd Martin

(Ms., I think. :yikes: )

It must've come up in the preceding discussions but here's what I like about science. There's an almost obsessive desire to legitimize one's work by giving it a scientific character. Most of the time this takes the form of mathematizing a subject of study and while some are amenable to quantification to some degree, others seem resistant to such attempts but all is not lost, there's always statistics to save the day given that its scope of application is almost universal.

However, this thirst for mathematics discernible in every field might be overdoing it a bit. Granted physics has worked its way up to the top of pecking order precisely because it's mathematical to the extent of being a dependent rather than a patron so to speak. There's so much more to science than just fancy arithmetic and geometry. What's non-mathematical about science, to me, is what it has in common with philosophy - clear language, logical rigor, to name a few. We could focus on this non-mathematical side to science too you know.

Western civilization according to Spengler aims at the infinite. — Wittgenstein

If Spengler is right, what makes you believe the infinite is unachievable? If I had a few tens of billions to spend, I'd drill for magma energy - close to magma pockets in the earth's crust, line the bore holes with pipes, and pump liquid through to produce steam to drive turbines - for limitless, base load clean electricity. Then I'd sequester carbon, desalinate, irrigate, recycle, farm fish, protect the forests, make the deserts bloom, and live happily ever after!

Point being, this could be the dawn for humankind; and a renaissance for western civilisation - for how else, but western industry and capitalism, could the technology be applied?

It wasn't until the early 20 the century, philosophers realized that it will all come to an end. — Wittgenstein

In one interpretation, the Book Of Genesis predicted our current state of affairs and likely future some three thousand years ago.

1) We ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge, and then...

2) Were evicted from the Garden of Eden.

Here's how I think this remarkable prediction was accomplished. It wasn't a vision from beyond, the word of God transcribed, or magical psychic powers. It was deep insight in to the human condition, a condition which hasn't really changed since the prediction was made.

As example, if you've read enough of Foghorn's posts, sooner or later it becomes clear that my human condition is to go endlessly blah, blah, blah about all kinds of things like a typoholic madmen, and swing wildly back and forth between being a jerk and a decent dude. Once you see the pattern, once you understand my human condition, you can predict the future of my writing with a degree of certainty.

Ancient peoples had some advantage in understanding fundamental properties like the human condition because their minds weren't crammed with all the kinds of mass produced noise which assaults our attention today.

There are of course many other interpretations of the Book Of Genesis, and no way to ever finally conclude which is correct. I'm just reporting my current favorite interpretation.

But as the commentaries by Bloom's teacher Leo Strauss show, Xenophon was deeply ironic. that is to say, he cannot not simply be taken at face value. — Fooloso4

I think you meant to say, “he cannot simply be taken at face value”. I have not read these commentaries of Strauss’, but my impression in reading the Anabasis is that Xenophon is not so much ironic as elliptical, both in language and thought: he expects the reader to both supply the omitted verb or phrase, and to draw his own inferences from what has already been said. As evidence of this I would direct you to the Rousseau quote I previously posted, and I hope you amended my “wow” to “woe” there.

The problem inherent in the surface of things, and only in the surface of things, is the heart of things.

This reminded me of a very similar thing Bloom said, but I was unable to find it. Maybe you can? It was something like, “the surface is the depths”.

A funny story told by Seth Benardete — Fooloso4

...

...that WAS indeed a funny story! I belly-laughed. The book was received with such animosity (but also popularity, we must remember), that Bloom feared the American Mind would close upon and crush him. Maybe the deer would have licked his face, but the anecdote, if true, proves that he had little experience of that animal.

I had to charge a doe once when my dog got too close to her fawn and she tried to stomp him.

I have Benardete’s excellent translation of Plato’s Symposium, which I read many years ago now. I also have the Greek, but wouldn’t dare attempt to read it, as my Greek skills are yet in their infancy, and there are so many quotes-within-quotes in that dialogue.

It is a shame that you and I are not next door neighbors, for, sharing a common interest in Strauss and philosophy, we might have many profitable discussions on each other’s back deck over a beer and barbecue. I guess the internet is supposed to be the solution for this problem, but it’s just not the same. One wants to see a person face-to-face, to hear their opinions and experiences through ones own ears, to hear their “valved voice”.

Ms., I think. :yikes: ) — Wayfarer

Yeah, ya never know nowadays.

Only know because she mentioned it on a thread.

I will sit on my back deck and toast you with a beer.

What's non-mathematical about science, to me, is what it has in common with philosophy - clear language, logical rigor, to name a few. We could focus on this non-mathematical side to science too you know. — TheMadFool

I'm interested. What did you have in mind? Because much of that logical rigour is logical precisely because it is mathematical. And clear language seems to be about communicating, not doing, science.

Only know because she mentioned it on a thread. — Wayfarer

Reminds me of the old riddle, “A father and son were involved in an automobile accident. Responders on the scene pronounced the father dead, but rushed his son to the nearest hospital with critical injuries and in need of immediate surgery...

“...into the ER strode the surgeon with gloves and gown, ready for emergency operation, but after seeing the victim’s face exclaimed, “Oh no! This is my son!””


@Fooloso4 “Cheers, mate! I will echo a sentiment of Bloom’s and say that, though we disagree on much, our concern for the same things proves we have more in common than what separates us.

“Cheers, mate! I will echo a sentiment of Bloom’s and say that, though we disagree on much, our concern for the same things proves we have more in common than what separates us. — Todd Martin

Very nice. Unfortunately some here take disagreement as a personal attack or resort to personal attacks where there is disagreement.

@Fooloso4

You have reminded me of Cleitophon, O Morosophos:

Socrates: Cleitophon...as someone was just telling us, was conversing with Lysias and criticized spending time with Socrates, while he could not praise too highly the company of Thrasymachos.

Cleitophon: whoever that someone was, Socrates, did not recount for you accurately the arguments that I made about you to Lysias. For while there were some things for which I for my part did not praise you, there were also some for which in fact I did. But since it is plain you are holding this against me, for all that you pretend you couldn’t care less, I would very gladly go over these same arguments with you myself...so that you will be less inclined to think that I have a low opinion of you. For as things stand now, perhaps you have been misinformed, and that is why you appear to be more harshly disposed toward me than you ought to be. So then, if you give me permission to speak frankly, I would very gladly accept it, as I wish to explain.

Socrates: Why, it would be shameful indeed, when you are so eager to benefit me, not to submit to it. For clearly, once I have learned my bad and good points, I will practice and pursue the one and shun the other with all my might.


Lest I be charged with plagiarism, let me point out that this is from Orwin’s translation.

It is remarkable that after these words, Socrates never again speaks in this dialogue. I imagine him listening attentively and silently throughout, and later contemplating in private what he heard.

Also remarkable to me is Socrates response: that he wanted to hear his critic so that he might become better. How rare is that sentiment! As soon as we hear criticism of ourselves, our instinct is to defend ourselves, for no one wants to feel himself to be lacking in good qualities or otherwise deficient in anything that would attract someone else to him.

The development of “thick skin” to ward off the slings and arrows of opprobrium is what one often hears is needed as protection against criticism. Socrates here, however, offers us submission to them, in case that criticism is warranted...

...my mother once told me, “your solution to problems is to run away from them”. That’s the wisest thing I remember her ever saying, and I just stood there before her in silence... because I knew that what she said could not be contradicted.

...my mother once told me, “your solution to problems is to run away from them”. — Todd Martin

I would have thought that was the hallmark of our era.

I would have thought that was the hallmark of our era. — Tom Storm

Nay Mr. Storm, in my opinion what distinguishes modernity from antiquity is rather the notion that there is no problem that cannot be solved, including, most crucially, the problem of the hostile relationship between philosophy and civil society. The ancients considered this hostility to be a permanent condition of life, and did their best through their writings to mitigate its effects—never thought of changing the relationship itself, which they considered to be inevitable.

No idea if that is true Mr Martin. I don't have qualifications in the anthropology of ancient civilizations. I was simply making the point that in my experience people running away from problems is endemic - avoidant behaviour - taking refuge in substance use and travel is almost a hallmark of our era. Perhaps because many in the West have the luxury of being able to put off becoming a responsible adult for many years it seems.

Perhaps because many in the West have the luxury of being able to put off becoming a responsible adult for many years it seems. — Tom Storm

The phrase “responsible adult” elicits an image of the citizen who “fits in”, takes a stable well-paying job, perhaps marries, has children, raises them, does everything in moderation, that is, without compromising his job or his family life. Is that what you implied by that phrase?

I wasn't thinking of a Republican's 1950's wet dream so much as Carl Jung's notion of Puer aeternus or puella aeterna - those who avoid emotional maturity. And yes, in some cases this consists of living at home with parents and on their dime at 35 years of age.

@Tom Storm

Mr. Storm, I’m still not at all sure what you’re talking about. Do you mean to say that ppl who travel a lot and use “substances” are the emotionally immature? Are you suggesting that responsible adults, the emotionally mature ones, remain sober and in one place? I am not familiar with Jung’s Eternal Boy or Girl.

Feel free to start a new thread on this if it interests you.

Feel free to start a new thread on this if it interests you. — Tom Storm

I get the feeling that you despise me. Is that true?

Goodness. Where is this coming from?