Elephants and turtles: Difference between revisions

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Elephants and turtles (view source)

Revision as of 19:42, 13 April 2021

1,426 bytes removed ,  13 April 2021
no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 10: Line 10:


===The Big Idea is dead, and we have killed it===
===The Big Idea is dead, and we have killed it===
To make a whopping great narrative, try this: the Enlightenment slowly suffocated God: Copernicus started it, in the 15th century; it fell to [[Charles Darwin]] to deliver the ''coup de grace'' four centuries later, and {{author|Friedrich Nietzsche}} to announce it to the world. But when we killed God, we gave quite a lot ''else'' away, too. Quite useful stuff: a settled means of telling right from wrong, for one thing. You know; ''truth''.
To make a whopping great narrative, try this: the gently advancing enquiries of the Enlightenment slowly suffocated God. Copernicus started it, in the 15th century, displacing the Earth from the centre of the universe; it fell to [[Charles Darwin]] to deliver the ''coup de grace'' four centuries later, and {{author|Friedrich Nietzsche}} to announce it to the world.  


Without God the enlightened western intellectual tradition needed to rebase all these organising principles from scratch: to ditch ''one'' Big Idea, it needed to replace it with ''another''. A ''new'' Big Idea was there, waiting to take over, at the moment the old one fell back lifeless on Charles Darwin’s specimen table. The New Big Idea was, of course, the enlightenment scientific tradition itself. Rationalism. Now, here is an interesting thing: what if the very idea that there must ''be'' a Big Idea, at all, is a function of the ''Old'' Big Idea — the one that just joined the choir invisible? Was Rationalism, in a profound way, utterly bound to the intellectual mores from whose surly bonds it slipped.
But when we killed God, we gave quite a lot ''else'' away, too. Quite useful stuff: a settled means of telling right from wrong, for one thing. And, well, ''truth''.


For now, hold that thought, for the Big Ideas that rushed in to replace God ''all'' cleaved strongly to the notion that there must be a Big Idea. Science could yield ''physical'' truth about the world, but not moral truth. To paraphrase David Hume for modern ears:
Without God the enlightened western intellectual tradition needed to rebase all these organising principles from scratch: to ditch ''one'' Big Idea, it needed to replace it with ''another''. A ''new'' Big Idea was there, waiting to take over, at the moment the old one fell back lifeless on Charles Darwin’s specimen table. The New Big Idea was, of course, the enlightenment scientific tradition itself. Rationalism. Now, here is an interesting thing: what if the very idea that there must ''be'' a Big Idea, at all, is a function of the ''Old'' Big Idea — the one that just joined the choir invisible? Was Rationalism, in a profound way, utterly bound to the intellectual mores from whose surly bonds it slipped?


{{quote|Every moral system that establishes a God or observes human behaiour suddenly switches from propositions joined by “is” to propositions joined by “ought”. This is an imperceptible, but important change. Since “ought”, expresses a new relation, it must be explained (but usually is not) ''how'' this ought can be deduced. To try to explain this would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality and we would see that one cannot found a vice or a virtue merely on the relation between objects.<ref>“In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, and establishes the being of a God, or makes observations concerning human affairs; when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not. This change is imperceptible; but is, however, of the last consequence. For as this ought, or ought not, expresses some new relation or affirmation, 'tis necessary that it should be observed and explained; and at the same time that a reason should be given, for what seems altogether inconceivable, how this new relation can be a deduction from others, which are entirely different from it. But as authors do not commonly use this precaution, I shall presume to recommend it to the readers; and am persuaded, that this small attention would subvert all the vulgar systems of morality, and let us see, that the distinction of vice and virtue is not founded merely on the relations of objects, nor is perceived by reason.” — {{author|David Hume}}, ''A Treatise on Human Nature''.</ref>}}
For now, hold that thought, for the Big Ideas that rushed in to replace God ''all'' did all cleave, strongly to the notion that ''there must be a Big Idea''. Science could yield ''physical'' truth about the world, but not ''moral'' truth. Making an is from an ought is tricky. The attempts to do so — to imagine a utopian future derived from the rational precepts of enlightenment, and free of the mysticism of turtles, elephants, geometrically illogical trinities and so forth, dependent only upon the scientific method, we call [[modernism]].
These attempts to do so, from the rational precepts of enlightenment: the scientific method, we call [[modernism]].
 
Science provided a foundation for truth, but needed rationalist programmes to coordinate the moral components. New Big Ideas were needed, and before long they presented themselves. In the early twentieth century there were two, both were utopian, and both disastrous. Between them, we can see the birth, and immediate crisis of, [[Modernism|modernity]].


Science provided the foundation for physical truth, but needed rationalist programmes to coordinate the moral components. New Big Ideas were needed, and before long they presented themselves. In the early twentieth century there were two, both were as utopian, as they were disastrous. Between them, we can see the birth, and immediate crisis of, [[Modernism|modernity]].
===The Turtle as a metaphor for our times===
In any case, failure of the “world turtle” [[metaphor]] is in its own inadvertent way, a potent symbol for the malaise of our time. A ''meta''-metaphor. Knowledge, friends: we are getting rather close to the turtle.
In any case, failure of the “world turtle” [[metaphor]] is in its own inadvertent way, a potent symbol for the malaise of our time. A ''meta''-metaphor. Knowledge, friends: we are getting rather close to the turtle.
{{draft}}
{{draft}}
Retrieved from "https://jollycontrarian.com/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/55658"

Navigation menu