"Briefly there was sorrow in him, an enormous pity for the bulk of mankind. They did not know themselves, they fought themselves like wild beasts, tied up in knots, locked in nightmare. Man could be so much if he had the chance." (IV, p. 155)
I agree with this diagnosis as far as it goes. Social conditions constraining individuals must also be considered but the Psychotechnic Institute knows that. And it is large numbers of individuals who have built societies. But social interactions take on a life of their own. For example, an employer wanting to pay his staff more cannot if he is to remain competitive. Individual motivations alone do not explain the dynamics of economic competition. Not only individual but also collective interests drive social change.
But we are nearly there. I mean that we are very close to the "so much" that we can be. Human beings are psychophysical organisms, conscious of their environments and of themselves, able to reason and reflect and also to formulate goals like: let us now know ourselves and become what we can be. This is Wellsian sf, offering hope for the future and addressing obstacles to human development.
15 comments:
Kaor, Paul!
I do not agree with such simplistic reasoning from Dalgetty. We are always going to have internal conflicts of all kinds, because we are all imperfect and prone to such things. We can only some what manage them, and never permanently eliminate those conflicts and flaws.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
If fundamental change were impossible, then there would not have been an evolutionary advance from sensory-animal to rational-human consciousness.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Except you are still assuming the truth of your merely materialist POV, which I do not agree with. I'm allowing for the existence of the supernatural, meaning there is more to mankind and the universe than what you think is the case.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I don't agree that materialism is "mere." It does not mean that nothing exists but mechanically interacting particles with only the quantifiable properties of mass and volume. "Matter" in the philosophical sense is being, that which preexisted consciousness and has become conscious. It changes qualitatively as well as quantitatively. Indeed, it has been capable of the qualitative change from unconsciousness to consciousness. Consciousness and self-consciousness are among its properties. The "supernatural" means consciousness existing independently of being - a contradiction. But why should this supernatural prevent further human development?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Development and change will be possible, but always going to be limited and imperfect due to mankind being Fallen.
And I still disbelieve in materialism.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the belief is that we were redeemed 2000 years ago.
Paul.
"an employer wanting to pay his staff more cannot if he is to remain competitive"
I should check up on the claim that Henry Ford paid his assembly line workers more so they could afford to buy a Model-T.
Kaor, Paul and Jim!
Paul: Except the salvation brought by Christ thru His atoning sacrifice on the Cross does not, in Catholic eyes, automatically mean all mankind will be saved. We all, each of us, have to assent and cooperate with divine grace to attain mercy thru Christ.
Jim: That was a classic example of economies of scale by Henry Ford! His innovations in manufacturing cars reduced the costs, per car, so much that he could afford to take a chance and raise wages for his employees, And it paid off, with profits increasing, despite the higher wages paid.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think Jesus proclaimed the kingdom (like the Baptist), got a large following, wondered about his own role in the kingdom, accepted the impulsive Peter's proclamation of him as the Messiah, interpreted the Messiah not as the Davidic monarch but as the Suffering Servant, challenged the authorities and died realizing that the Suffering Servant approach had failed. The disciples, initially traumatized, reinterpreted scriptures as prophesying that suffering, death and resurrection were the way to Messiahship. Paul, finding the Law oppressive, interpreted the crucifixion as a perfect sacrifice. His account of the resurrection differs from the one presented in the Gospels.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Except the actual, literal, and physical resurrection of Christ makes nonsense of this unconvincing interpretation, as St. Paul pointed out in 1 Corinthians 15.12-19. And that was something Anderson agreed with, as seen in "A Chapter of Revelation."
I do not agree with these strained, weak, "liberal," antisupernaturalist Modernist interpretations of Christianity.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
IF that actual, physical, literal resurrection happened. The evidence is very weak.
My interpretation is not strained, weak or "liberal" but is based at every stage on the actual New Testament texts.
Should "antisupernaturalism" be regarded as invalid a priori? Do we have to assume supernaturalism to be true before we can even enter the discussion? That begs a lot of questions.
Paul.
Supernaturalists must prove or demonstrate the supernatural. Sceptics are under no obligation to disprove it. This is a basic logical point.
If you assume the supernatural and then label those who do not assume it as "antisupernaturalists," implying that it is they that are making an unwarranted assumption, then you are getting the entire discussion back to front.
Let's have discussion rather than a list of denigrating adjectives like "liberal"!
Kaor, Paul!
No, the supreme proof of Christianity remains the Resurrection of Christ. Something happened that so transformed as unimpressive a group of nonentities like the Apostles that the Church Christ founded utterly changed the world. Over and over, thru the centuries, the Catholic Church should have disappeared, thru the self inflicted vices and follies of its leaders and members, but it has not. But it has not, because Christ told the Apostles He would always be with His Church. That too is a proof.
Moreover, in 1 Corinthians 15.1-11, St. Paul discussed how, after meeting the Risen One he sought out eyewitnesses who had seen the risen Christ, such as the Apostles and 500 other witnesses. I consider that to be a proof, whether you believe it or not.
The argument you prefer is based on what I consider misinterpretations of the NT, to arrive at a non-supernaturalist conclusion.
There is nothing wrong with "antisupernaturalism." To me it merely refers to those who don't believe God exists or who deny He acts in the universe (as Deists seem to think).
I use "liberal" because I get angry at how that once honorable word has been corrupted soon after 1900. What used to mean a supporter of free enterprise economics and libertarianism has been taken over by people with ideas not only contradicting such things, but also often bad, false, counterproductive. etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
"Liberal" has nothing to do with this discussion of the New Testament.
Something happened but what? Trauma, then reinterpretation of scripture. That is what Luke's Gospel and Peter's Pentecost sermon show.
I don't think Paul spoke to 500 people. I think he was told that there was one appearance to 500. Matthew says that, in an appearance to a group, "...some doubted." Paul's testimony in no way constitutes proof. He saw a light and heard a voice. He did not meet a physical person with whom he could shake hands. He spoke to some other people. The accounts as we have them are written after the events described and are inconsistent.
Paul.
Post a Comment