Do Artifacts Have Politics? - Langdon Winner - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All sociological topics not appropriate or suited to other areas of the board.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#14664043
Personally I can not imagine cultural and and social decay at any more faster level, then what have been witnessed in the past decades. If you compare most societies today on the standards of the Bible and how society should be accordingly, you will realize a lot of places are pretty much on the level of Sodom and Gomorrah. And in some cases they reached that level within decades.
#14664050
You make it sound so sterile.

The historical process is far from sterile.

History demonstrates that nothing lasts forever, but the question is whether the Enlightenment project really reached its end. If so, shouldn't there be cultural decay at a much faster rate/or collapse of greater scale than what is present?

As Samuel Johnson once remarked, "There is much ruin in a nation." It took the Roman Empire centuries to fall, yet fall it did.

Because the only alternative to a cultural abyss seems to be postmodernism; which of itself doesn't offer any grand narrative, it only deconstructs but constructs nothing.

Postmodernism is a symptom of the decay of culture, just as pantheism is a symptom of the decay of religion.

But what is the source of that dark underbelly?

It came into existence at the birth of the Enlightenment, just as the proletariat - the dark underbelly of bourgeois society - came into existence at the birth of the bourgeoisie itself. The bourgeoisie cannot exist as a class without the existence of a proletariat, and the positive aspects of the Enlightenment cannot exist without its negative aspects.

Is it like a the natural yang to what the Enlightenment's yin?

Yang is the bright sun-lit side of a mountain slope, and yin is the dark, shadowy side of a mountain slope. You've got your yins and yangs mixed up.

Or does it relate to our unconscious nature/instinct that cannot be overcome, whatever self-image or narrative we pursue consciously?

I would hesitate to refer to the concept of 'human nature' as a way of explaining anything, but as Kant once said, "Out of the warped wood of human nature, nothing straight was ever made."
#14669532
Potemkin wrote:The historical process is far from sterile.
I agree, that's why that statement was for the purpose of critique.

As Samuel Johnson once remarked, "There is much ruin in a nation." It took the Roman Empire centuries to fall, yet fall it did.
Shouldn't that quote be attributed to Adam Smith?

Postmodernism is a symptom of the decay of culture, just as pantheism is a symptom of the decay of religion.
I agree but, I am not sure if classical pantheism (if that is what you refer to) was a symptom of decay. After all much of the earlier, naturalist, religions were more or less also "pantheist". I see the pantheism of the classical era as an accumulation of their cultural "globalism". The deities of that age were pretty much personal gods for certain nations, tribes, etc. Thus pantheism was one way to have a sort of framework for global public discourse, a "law of nations" so to say (next to the military exploits of Alexander and the Romans of course). This is also why later on the adoption of Christianity was revolutionary, it provided a universalist discourse without the need for the inclusion of additional deities.


It came into existence at the birth of the Enlightenment, just as the proletariat - the dark underbelly of bourgeois society - came into existence at the birth of the bourgeoisie itself. The bourgeoisie cannot exist as a class without the existence of a proletariat, and the positive aspects of the Enlightenment cannot exist without its negative aspects.
That's an interesting way to phrase it. So to deny/stop the negative aspect of Enlightenment is to deny/stop Enlightenment?

Yang is the bright sun-lit side of a mountain slope, and yin is the dark, shadowy side of a mountain slope. You've got your yins and yangs mixed up.
My bad, Sifu. *Bows in shame.*

I would hesitate to refer to the concept of 'human nature' as a way of explaining anything, but as Kant once said, "Out of the warped wood of human nature, nothing straight was ever made."
And for good reason, otherwise we would most likely not have survived and dominated the planet if our nature was straight.
#14669580
Shouldn't that quote be attributed to Adam Smith?

Quite possibly.

I agree but, I am not sure if classical pantheism (if that is what you refer to) was a symptom of decay. After all much of the earlier, naturalist, religions were more or less also "pantheist". I see the pantheism of the classical era as an accumulation of their cultural "globalism". The deities of that age were pretty much personal gods for certain nations, tribes, etc. Thus pantheism was one way to have a sort of framework for global public discourse, a "law of nations" so to say (next to the military exploits of Alexander and the Romans of course). This is also why later on the adoption of Christianity was revolutionary, it provided a universalist discourse without the need for the inclusion of additional deities.

That's very true, but I was referring to philosophical pantheism rather than the practical pantheism of the ancient world. There's a difference between proclaiming that every god is real and proclaiming that the entire physical universe and everything in it is God.

That's an interesting way to phrase it. So to deny/stop the negative aspect of Enlightenment is to deny/stop Enlightenment?

Yes. The Daoist symbol, the taiqi, shows this very clearly - the yin and yang sides are intertwined and the dot on each side symbolises that at the heart of yin there is yang and at the heart of yang there is yin. They contain each other in their own definitions, their own identities. As Ursula K. LeGuin put it, "Light is the left hand of darkness." Any attempt to eradicate the 'dark' aspects of the Enlightenment will necessarily end up eradicating the positive aspects of the Enlightenment too.

And for good reason, otherwise we would most likely not have survived and dominated the planet if our nature was straight.

Heh. Good point.
#14669584
Yes. The Daoist symbol, the taiqi, shows this very clearly - the yin and yang sides are intertwined and the dot on each side symbolises that at the heart of yin there is yang and at the heart of yang there is yin. They contain each other in their own definitions, their own identities. As Ursula K. LeGuin put it, "Light is the left hand of darkness." Any attempt to eradicate the 'dark' aspects of the Enlightenment will necessarily end up eradicating the positive aspects of the Enlightenment too.
It seems everything that is created also within its creation, fosters the means of its undoing.

Another example is nationalism, it is good, but the dark side of that is when people begin to become fundamentally supremacist with it. Hence in the end, such people, in name of nationalism will destroy nations. I believe that is where Nazi Germany went wrong. This dark side of nationalism at the end of WWII scared western liberal Europe so much, that because of the bad they threw out the baby with the cradle and the good with it.

Similar with liberalism, it has a lot good in it, and one has to be careful not to disregard all of it as wrong.
#14669593
It seems everything that is created also within its creation, fosters the means of its undoing.

Another example is nationalism, it is good, but the dark side of that is when people begin to become fundamentally supremacist with it. Hence in the end in name of nationalism will destroy nations. I believe that is where Nazi Germany went wrong. It scared western liberal Europe so much of national thinking, that because of the bad they threw out the baby with the cradle.

Similar with liberalism, it has a lot good in it, and one has to be careful not to disregard all of it as wrong.

Precisely. You've got it, Albert.

This is, of course, a dialectical way of seeing the world.
#14669611
That's very true, but I was referring to philosophical pantheism rather than the practical pantheism of the ancient world. There's a difference between proclaiming that every god is real and proclaiming that the entire physical universe and everything in it is God.
I see now what you mean and why you related it to post-modernism.

Yes. The Daoist symbol, the taiqi, shows this very clearly - the yin and yang sides are intertwined and the dot on each side symbolises that at the heart of yin there is yang and at the heart of yang there is yin. They contain each other in their own definitions, their own identities. As Ursula K. LeGuin put it, "Light is the left hand of darkness." Any attempt to eradicate the 'dark' aspects of the Enlightenment will necessarily end up eradicating the positive aspects of the Enlightenment too.
Something to ponder about. And I guess it's time to (re-)read a LeGuin novel.

Earlier you said that arguably the Enlightenment ended with the Holocaust. Couldn't it be also said, however, and as already argued by some philosopher(s) whose name(s) I cannot recall now, that the Holocaust was precisely a product of (rather than the anti-thesis to) Enlightenment, in similar vein to the terror of the French revolution, albeit at a greater scale and with more rigorous destruction.

Albert wrote:It seems everything that is created also within its creation, fosters the means of its undoing.

Another example is nationalism, it is good, but the dark side of that is when people begin to become fundamentally supremacist with it. Hence in the end, such people, in name of nationalism will destroy nations. I believe that is where Nazi Germany went wrong. This dark side of nationalism at the end of WWII scared western liberal Europe so much, that because of the bad they threw out the baby with the cradle and the good with it.

Similar with liberalism, it has a lot good in it, and one has to be careful not to disregard all of it as wrong.
I think there is more to it than just the message of moderation, if that is the gist of this comment. After all, a dialectical relation exist because of the motion of opposite forces. Moderation seems like an effort which, in essence, would try to undo that motion, to reconcile opposites as one and the same, and hence futile.
#14669686
So what I hear you saying, Potemkin, is that dialectics is about how every idea gets taken too far? Sounds almost Aristotelian.

The main difference is, as Cookie pointed out, the importance of motion - each dialectical opposite rises and falls. As Lao Tzu said, "Reversion is the nature of the Dao". Everything first rises to dominance and then reverts to its dialectical opposite, and this cycle repeats itself. The taiqi symbol of Daoism is usually portrayed as being static, but in fact it must be thought of as constantly rotating (the shapes of the yin and yang strongly suggest that they are in constant motion). First yang is on top and yin is underneath, but then yang gives way to yin, and then yin gives way to yang, and so on. Night follows day and day follows night, winter follows summer and summer follow winter. Reversion is the nature of the Dao. Every development contains the seeds of its own destruction, every negation contains its own negation. Aristotle's 'moderation' is essentially static in its conception, and is therefore non-dialectical.

In a sense, therefore, every idea should be taken "too far"; how else will it revert into its own negation?
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

Were Israelis not taking Palestinian land and hom[…]

People tend to forget that the French now have a s[…]

Neither is an option too. Neither have your inte[…]

They are building a Russian Type nuclear reactor..[…]