The end of abstract speculation: Kant signalled the end of speculative metaphysics. Thereafter, abstract speculation was replaced by science and mathematics. — Jamal

To expand on this, I think it's more definitive death blow was the growing Analytic Philosophy of Frege, Russell, and positivists. Throughly atomizing the speculative to mathematical proof-based ideas and language analysis. However, I find it poetic justice that Whitehead, one of the big Analytic players, steeped in logic and math proofs, had one of the most speculative of speculative philosophy's metaphysics in his Process and Reality ("occasions of experience" anyone??).

Also, not that I am completely onboard, but the Speculative Realists, and traditional idealists in the Continental variety (Badiou, Deleuze, etc.) are still pretty speculative on the academic level.

Of course, speculative thinking in general is just not part of everyday speech in any logical form. It indeed is relegated to the fancies of "metaphysics" and "spiritualism" books, traditional religion (barely), and again, academia.

But certainly, people aren't connecting computer code, TPS reports, and accounting with anything other than their grueling repetitive tasks to be done with. The same with the trade-jobs, manufacturing, and the rest. Daily life gets in the way of meaning. As you stated:

unless this is taken to mean that most people remain excluded from the world of ideas and do not have the leisure or education to take part in intellectual discussion. What would be nice are two things: (1) a non-religious re-enchantment of the world, and (2) a re-organization of society to make this possible. — Jamal

What's sad, is the Self-Help gurus co-option of the Existentialism to make people subjugated to the menial but explaining to them, childishly, that there is meaning in the mundane by simply going through the gauntlet of life itself. As long as trends like "yoga" , "meditation", "vacation destinations", and "leisure time" is added, WhAt iS So WrOng WiTh tHiS ArraNgeMent!!!???


Meaning is shorn due to the internal workings of the socio-economic system, as it played out since the rise of industrialism and post-industrialism. Modernity is atomized thoroughly, to the point that we have internalized the atomization as thus good. Goods have obscured the Good. Also, simply stating "consumerism is bad" is a superficial attempt to get at this point. It's not just consumptive aspects, it is the PRODUCTION modes, which are obscuring meaning in daily life!!!! The focus on consumerism is likely a holdover from the Protestant Work Ethic's idea that work, even in atomized, meaningless form is best and sacred. Consumption must be the problem then, not production. But that is a deceptive ruse.

I wonder what @BC has to say on this.

Well, yes. What's the point of being a powerful authority if you can't decide what is true? "We'll decide what the Truth is, thank you, and perhaps we will provide you with an abbreviated, sanitized version at some point in the future, depending on our estimate of what you need to know. People don't like being burdened with disturbing information. In any case, don't call us, we'll call you." — BC

:lol: Yes I remember something about Athenians believing their heroes are chosen by the gods, and not all of the chosen have the arete to live up to the calling but remain as the herd dependent on the Shepard. A concern about democracy is the masses being as cattle because they avoid thinking as you say but can be easily lead in the wrong direction. Interestingly, although Greek philosophers discussed education they did not take the education of children seriously.

masses being as cattle because they avoid thinking as you say but can be easily lead in the wrong direction. — Athena

It's the structure that makes us cattle. But it's a double-bind, as the structure creates the goods and services you so love (like electricity, plastics, medicine, various materials, mining, food production, electronics, furniture, fixtures, goods of all varieties, heating, buildings, infrastructure, transportation, roads, ANYTHING). So unless you forgo that, back to the cattle pens we go as we monger minutia in the cattle feed.

The focus on consumerism is likely a holdover from the Protestant Work Ethic's idea that work, even in atomized, meaningless form is best and sacred. Consumption must be the problem then, not production. — schopenhauer1

I agree that there's a Protestant aspect to the critique of consumerism and I'm really not on board with it either. Socialism has always had a puritan stream, but Marx seems to have seen the expansion of new needs in a positive light.

Socialism has always had a puritan stream, but Marx seems to have seen the expansion of new needs in a positive light. — Jamal

Not sure what to think of Marxism, because it relies so heavily on the utopian dream being automated so we can pursue more meaningful things. But that requires even more digging into the minutia-mongering in the meantime. Also, I think the divide isn't necessarily "capitalists", it's also a knowledge divide. Having a deeper understanding of technology can provide individuals with a greater sense of agency and control over their lives and the world around them. This understanding goes beyond just using technology and involves knowledge of the materials, components, and processes that make it work. Scientists, engineers, and inventors, for example, often have this more comprehensive understanding and as a result, have more control and meaning over the technology they work with and the whole system in general. On the other hand, the average person may have a more limited understanding and tend to focus on the superficial aspects of technology, rather than its underlying mechanisms. This subsequently leads to simply minutia-mongering and leaving us more like babbling children lost in the big human-created forces that we can never fully understand or control (yet which others have more understanding and control of)- a sort of double-bind for the modern average person.

Marx seems to have seen the expansion of new needs in a positive light. — Jamal

The notion of false needs has been popular among Marxists since the Frankfurt School, and their analysis has moved on from Marx to suit the times, as it should. All the same, I still find myself more sympathetic to Marx himself:

It is characteristic of the economists that Storch expresses this thusly: the material of money should should ‘have direct value but on the basis of an artificial need‘. Artificial need is what the economist calls, firstly, the needs which arise out of the social existence of the individual; secondly, those which do not flow from its naked existence as a natural object. This shows the inner, desperate poverty which forms the basis of bourgeois wealth and of its science. — Marx, Grundrisse

Even if I'm comparing apples and oranges, because Marx and Marcuse were writing about different things, I still tend to think that the comparison reflects the way that theoretical Marxism moved from the staunch advocacy of the ambitions of the working class to a basic disappointment in and suspicion of that class.

I won't take this digression any further.

It's the structure that makes us cattle. But it's a double-bind, as the structure creates the goods and services you so love (like electricity, plastics, medicine, various materials, mining, food production, electronics, furniture, fixtures, goods of all varieties, heating, buildings, infrastructure, transportation, roads, ANYTHING). So unless you forgo that, back to the cattle pens we go as we monger minutia in the cattle feed. — schopenhauer1

Your comment sent me looking for more information and I am thrilled with this site https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2010/2010.12.59/

The author of the review of the book Susan A. Curry, quotes Pierre Bourdieu’ “‘a system of internalized schemes that have the capacity to generate all thoughts, perceptions, and actions characteristic of a culture’”

Back in the day, the technological advancements you mention did not exist and to my surprise, the ownership of cattle and a sacred economy went together, and their internalized schemes came out of herding cattle, not living as we live today. I am thrilled by how this information can increase our awareness of our own internalized and economy.

How might things be different if we had a sacred economy? Do we have any examples of a sacred economy today? How about the Mormons maintaining a supply of food, or futher back, Puritan business and fincial practices? What is lurking our subconscious as we speak of the reality we experience today?

Ancient Greeks had a sacred economy based on the gods and herding cattle even after they became city dwellers and raised cattle on communal land, making the cattle commonwealth, not just an individual's wealth. Oh, oh the Jews dealt with this transition from herding to being settled and having private property.

Yipes I got a little off topic so I will tie back into the topic. What is in our subconscious that gives form to our speculations? What happens to our liberty when we are trapped by our desires?