We still have not exhausted the riches of p. 160. Nor will we, certainly not in a single attempt. After spelling out how bad civilization has been and still is for human beings, Rheinbogen (I can't get used to that name and have to check the spelling each time) adds:
"'And yet nowadays we haven't any choice, we can't go back.'" (p. 160)
This remarks takes us in opposite directions simultaneously. On the one hand, it is not only impossible but also undesirable to return to the:
"'...impoverished, frightened, hard-working, short life...'" (ibid.)
- of a savage. On the other hand, it is possible to think about going forward:
"'Civilization does have fantastically wonderful potentialities, if only we can realize them.'" (ibid.)
And psychodynamic research is for this purpose.
But lastly (maybe), what do we make of Rheinbogen's claim that most people as they are now could not live happily in a world with neither war nor crime? Are we happier for hearing about Ukraine and crimes of violence on the TV news? My answer is that we are certainly not.
13 comments:
Poul eventually grew convinced 'psychodynamic' research couldn't be done.
Kaor, Paul and Mr. Stirling!
Paul: It's not so much about being happier learning about chaos, wars, violence, etc., elsewhere; because IWHBD, due to us being innately flawed, and prone to strive/violence. Things that can only be managed, not "solved."
Mr. Stirling: For a while, as did Anderson, I used to think John K. Hord had some inklings in that direction. You convinced me that was not the case.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We are not innately flawed. We have evolved from merely animal to "rational animal." We have remade the world with collective manual and mental labour. We are still in the process of realizing our potential. There is no limit to human potential. Even the sky is not the limit. We can set out to solve current problems and do not need to write "solved" inside quotation marks.
Paul.
Paul: humans are not blank slates. That was the basic error of Enlightenment thinkers, that humans could be made into anything. Our basic genetic nature sharply limits possibilities.
Not blank slates, agreed. But dynamic, adaptable, proactive, sometimes creative, capable of building and living in many different cultures. We obviously have physical limits but can find ways to get around them. Men can fly higher than birds.
Kaor, Paul!
I disagree, both for reasons based on divine revelation, which you disbelieve in (hence not worth discussing here) and in the undeniable fact of how actual humans think and act, here and now, and as far back in the past as we can go. Which I believe is the way to bet they will continue to act in the future.
Mr. Stirling: I agree, which reminds me of Trotsky's angry frustration with those "evil tailless apes."
Conservative philosophers, as long ago as Marcus Aurelius, were wiser, believing true statesmen have to begin by acknowledging/accepting human beings as we actually are--not as we want them to be.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
You disagree with the undeniable fact that human beings are dynamic, adaptable etc?
Why do you want to keep repeating this argument and disagreement? It seems obsessive to me.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Because as Stirling said human beings are not born with blank slates. And that "dynamism" you insist on is not infinite being possible up to a certain point.
Anderson's works/beliefs inevitably invites these controversies.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I know and agree that we are not blank slates!
I do not "insist" on anything. I disagree with you about some things. Our dynamism is unlimited. Look how far we have come from hunting and gathering to now and we are only just beginning - if we can just manage not to destroy ourselves which now seems increasingly likely, unfortunately. Do you know how much the environment is spinning out of control with governments and corporations not only not addressing the problem but accelerating the process?
(Page views since 1:00 AM today: 1018042 if my screen is to be believed which I doubt.)
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
My belief remains that no matter how rich, peaceful, and seemingly content might someday seems to be, the Old Adam within all of us will rear up. That was Anderson's belief as well and I've seen no reason to expect otherwise.
It does seem doubtful: 1,018,042 page views in one day!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
People who are well off, peaceful and content will suddenly want to riot and form lynch mobs for no reason? They do not do that now.
Paol.
Kaor, Paul!
Yes, they can and will. I did not say all at once, my belief that boredom caused by long peace will be more than enough for some to seek relief from ennui via brawling and riots. Or from indulging in intrigues of the kind seen in Chapter Six of GENESIS.
The football hooligans in the UK brawl for no good reason. I don't share your optimism about human beings.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But we need not have boring peace leading to ennui. We can have active, creative, dynamic peace with a culture and resources devoted to encouraging individuals to learn, develop and grow. Your imagination clearly does not reach to the potentialities of your own proactive species. Our being able to have such a discussion across the Atlantic is just a start.
Paul.
Post a Comment