"Somewhat as the medieval Church nurtured Western civilization, the Institute was a kind of placenta for Technic society. In both cases, an outgrown matrix was becoming constrictive and had to be broken, and in both cases the act of breaking threw men back temporarily to disorganization and unreason." (p. 175)
That single passage illuminates the Psychotechnic History. Although the Psychotechnic Institute is outlawed very early in this future history series, governments and other organizations continue to employ psychotechnicians and the science reaches its full fruition and application later. So "The Psychotechnic History," although not "The Psychotechnic League," remains a valid title.
Poul Anderson's Time Patrol series sheds further light on the role of the Church. The idea of a single omnipotent deity decreeing a single set of natural laws encouraged the scientific study of those laws and the medieval church-state conflict prevented either a theocracy or an autocracy, thus allowing the growth of both science and freedom.
Don't just read one series by Poul Anderson.
28 comments:
Note that the encouragement of scientific investigation of natural law was specific to Latin Christianity after Aquinas, who held that religion and reason could not conflict (to summarize heavily).
There were other theological tendencies in Latin Christianity, but they lost. Their equivalents in the Orthodox world and in the House of Islam -won-.
This was historically very significant.
NB: yes, all of Poul's work, even the early stuff, is well worth reading!
In James Blish's DOCTOR MIRABILIS, Roger Bacon pioneers science and regards Aquinas as taking the safe conformist route.
Paul: it's a matter of getting there by stages.
Incidentally, Aquinas' position -- that reason could not be a threat to religion -- was factually wrong, and that of his opponents was right. They intuitively sensed that rationalism -was- a threat, and they were perfectly correct.
Aquinas' worldview was more Aristotelian than scientific, but given the circumstances of the time that was 'close enough for government work', as the saying goes.
It was, however, a step in 'de-supernaturalizing' Western Civ's conception of nature.
Five centuries later, in the early 19th century, when Napoleon asked Laplace where God fit into his mathematical work, he replied:
"Sire, I have no need of that hypothesis."
In the Carnforth Bookshop which I mentioned recently, I found a book which argued that, unless Christians accept Biblical inerrancy, they will slide into secularism, even if this takes centuries to happen...
If those were the only two options, then I would go straight for the secularism.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: It's been a long time I read much about him, but wasn't St. Albertus Magnus, the friend and teacher of St. Thomas, also a believer in the scientific investigation of nature?
And your mention of Islam brings up a puzzle I've sometimes thought about: why has Islam been so artistically and intellectually sterile? Just off the top of my head I can list any number of devout Christians who have been great artists, philosophers, scientists, writers. etc. But no with Islam (unless you count Khayyam).
I disagree that reason, as such, is a threat to religion. What has been called "rationalism" in its extreme form is best understood as an unscientific ideologizing of reason.
Paul: I believe in Biblical inerrancy, as UNDERSTOOD by the Catholic Church. Not in the naive and childish way of so many evangelical Protestants.
I also reject secularism, esp. the grotesque variety which says nothing is TRUE, everything is relative. I also hold that if nothing is true, that opens the door to people believing in a host of catastrophic follies.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Secularism is just "this world only."
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But, it does not stop with something as vague and empty as "secularism." It won't satisfy the desire of many people to believe in something that's "real."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
This world is real. Secularism is concrete, not vague. It seems empty only to those who believe in something else in the first place.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
IOW, all that matters are merely physical things. I disagree because man does not live by bread (or Citizen's Credit) alone!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Human beings matter.
Paul.
Men survive on their income, however it comes to them, and live by human interactions and activities.
Kaor, Paul!
Bread, or Citizen's Credit, might satisfy some, but not MANY others.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
It doesn't. That's why I said that we (merely) survive on on our income but (really) live by what makes us human.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Not just those things, because humans also need to BELIEVE in something that satisfies their sense of serious and necessary purpose. If not, then we are back to "Quixote and the Windmill."
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Many people live and function without believing anything.
But we have now got two questions on the table:
Do people need to believe in something?
Do most people need to live in a society where they are obliged to earn a living?
The second question has morphed into the first.
There are and have been leisured classes who have been perfectly content not to have to work for a living. Some, not all, members of those classes have been creators, inventors, writers, artists, philosophers. Others have been happy simply to socialize and attend concerts and other cultural events. Those who have wanted a deeper meaning have sought and found it in different ways. This will continue.
Paul.
Sean: "why has Islam been so artistically and intellectually sterile?"
I don't actually have an answer, but in the first several centuries of Islam people living under the Caliphate preserved the science & philosophy of the Greeks & built upon it, as well as adopting things from other neighbors like the Hindu numerals
So it looks like the question is why did Islam *become* sterile after the 1st few centuries.
I have seen the suggestion that a major factor was that in those early centuries there were many Christians, Zoroastrians and other non-Muslims living under the Caliphate to give intellectual variety. As time went on the preferential treatment to Muslims resulted in conversion of those minorities & the intellectual variety diminished.
Kaor, Paul and Jim!
Paul: Except true leisure classes, whether rich or poor, have a very bad record. You are thinking IDEALISTICALLY, thinking the relatively rare exceptions you cited can or will become the general rule. I do not believe that will ever be the case.
Jim: You have made points which I believe goes a long way to making senses of why Islam as a whole has been so intellectually sterile. Yes, the existence of Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians, etc., in the territories conquered by Mohammed's successors did, for a while, encourage cultural ferment. But that, along with the influence of Christian theology and Greek philosophy, eventually provoked a fierce and stifling reaction from the defenders of Muslim orthodoxy, who feared these non-Muslim ideas and beliefs would undermine Islam.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But you have completely confused together the questions whether people need meaning in their lives and whether they need to be forced to work at someone else's behest.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't understand this issue you are making about "behest." ALL human organizations, large or small, NEED rules and regulations, written or not, so its members will be able to do their jobs. Yes, and humans will bollix that up as well!
I also believe most humans will want to believe in something bigger than they are, such as a faith or philosophy, AND find meaning and self respect in work.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But obeying rules agreed by society is different from having to be employed by someone else in order to survive economically.
If human beings want to believe in something bigger than themselves, then they can do. But we should believe that a proposition is true because we have good reasons to believe that it is true, not because we want to believe that it is true.
Finding meaning and self-respect in work is one thing. Having to be employed by someone else is another thing. These are simply different. Many people find nothing but drudgery and alienation in being employed to perform tasks serving the interests of someone else.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But "society," however that is defined, includes among those rules recognizing and enforcing the the terms under which employers and employees operate, and has to operate.
And convinced Jews, Christians, Buddhists, etc., already believe they have reasons for believing in the truth of those faiths and philosophies.
I do not believe it is somehow wrong or bad that most people work for somebody else. Not if the terms and conditions of employment were agreed on.
Work is often drudgery? I agree, AND SO WHAT? Real life is often hard and difficult. My view is the truly mature person doesn't moan and groan about that, but copes as best he can.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Laws govern terms of employment as long as there is a division between employers and employees. I try to imagine a qualitatively different society in future. You project our familiar kind of society into an indefinite future.
Technology can certainly be used to eliminate drudgery.
I think most people accept received beliefs without really considering either the reasons for them or any possible alternatives.
Paul.
(You said people WANT to believe so I was responding to that.)
Kaor, Paul!
I don't think it's somehow bad there are "divisions" between employers and employees. That's simply an example of "division of labor." Because, like it or not, people are going to remain DIFFERENT, in talents, abilities, circumstances of life, etc. Trying to arbitrarily legislate away such differences will never succeed.
You are free attempting to imagine a "qualitatively" different kind of society in the far future. I believe what you hope for is an impossibility. All we can do is somehow manage what we ACTUALLY are: flawed and prone to violence and conflicts of all kinds.
And I don't object one bit to advances in technology making life easier.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I do not suggest arbitrary legislation. The employer-employee division has been economically necessary but will it always be? Change is rapid and accelerating. I think that the far future is nearer than we think. And, unfortunately, it can be a negative one. Genuine progress is possible but not inevitable.
Paul.
Jim: same reason as the Orthodox countries did; the argument Aquinas won in the Latin countries got lost in the House of Islam.
Specifically, look up a Muslim scholar named Al-Ghazzali. He -did- think reason undermined faith, and he won the argument there.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Until and unless a post scarcity economy comes to exist, that employer/employee set will be necessary. And even if it does people will be still be competitive about many things, esp. politics.
Even as the more things change I believe many other things will stay obstinately the same!
And as a certain Person once warned, wars and the rumors of wars will remain with us to the end of time. I see zero reason to doubt that!
Mr. Stirling: One deeply learned book I have, way above my noggin, is Harry Austryn Wolfson's book THE PHILOSOPHY OF THE KALAM. Basically, its about how the early Muslims reacted Christian theology and Classical philosophy. Wolfson probably discussed al-Ghazzali in that book. I will check.
I might have tried arguing with al-Ghazzali like this, to show why reason is no danger to faith (admittedly, as Catholics understand it): we can all agree, I hope, that 2 + 2 = 4. I believe God, being both TRUTH and the Author of truth, would not, COULD not, say anything contradicting what reason and logic forces us to agree is true. God will never say that 2 + 2 = 5.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment