Wednesday, November 19, 2008

today's musings

My preliminary thoughts on the subject of "Is the world getting worse/degenerating/decaying?"

Firstly: This question implies that there is some sort of y-axis of worse-better, progress-regression, growth-decay (where the x-axis is time). So the first problem is, what is this dimension? Are we assuming something metaphysical,  i.e., that there is an ultimately reality to this, as opposed to a mere human value judgement? If we assume the former, what is the yardstick, where does this super-value-system derive from? If the latter, then we enter a very different debate, one which is concerned mainly with arguing the various merits/demerits of the modern world, and which will inevitably lead to a very relative conclusion depending on what aspects of the world we choose to privilege. If we go with the former (which I suspect is Stephen's intention/preference), then we are led into two debates: one about the nature of this purported universal spiritual value system, and another about how the world is and whether it's going up or down the pole, so to speak.

I also anticipate a second problem or area of debate, one which has already reared its head: the problem of cultural relativism. If we cannot escape the perspective of our culture, then how are we to evaluate our own society, where are we to find some purchase outside of it? We touched on this with the discussion of aboriginal experience versus modern, scientific experience. Perhaps we can escape this problem by not attempting to escape our culture, but merely attempting to evaluate its apparent progress or lack of it according to value norms we possess as citizens of this particular world. But even then, we hit a problem of historical relativism. Can we even evaluate an earlier historical consciousness, if it is sufficiently removed from us in time?

So, we burrow down towards the root of this philosophical tree and are -surprise, surprise - confounded. How do we get beyond these entanglements and unknowables?

OK, so moving on, I was talking to Greg on the way home last night and I suggested that the five of us can be placed on a continuum that goes something like this:

Martin-Stephen-Pierz-Greg-Paul

where the dimension of measurement is "preparedness to accept the outlandish". Greg argued that his defence of more "rational" positions does not necessarily reflect his true views, but he is driven to  it by Martin (aren't we all?), but my counter to that was that he still finds himself taking that position relative to Martin, even if he would argue something more Martin-ish in different company. 

Now within the group mind, these positions have their role. We need our science-apologists, our loony-fringers, our relatively relativist and absolutist positions. What interests me is two questions that take us outside of the debates themselves to a sort of "meta-debate":

Why do we tend to take these positions and not others? What hope or fear or view of ourselves (in other words, what non-rational factors) leads us to argue from this particular standpoint?

and

What other dimensions are there by which we can characterise the positions we tend to adopt? (for example, a materialism versus idealism)

It might save us time if we recognise these dimensions and biases.


OK, enough...



Thanks to Paul, my new MSDN forum signature:
class Religion { Explain (event) { try { ToExplain(event)} catch { throw("God moves in mysterious ways") } } }