Difference between revisions of "A historical introduction to the foundations of culture"
(Created page with "<div class="page-header" > <h1>A historical introduction to the foundations of culture</h1> </div> <!-- <div class="row"> <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Attention is a resource...") |
m |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<div class="page-header" > <h1>A historical introduction to the foundations of culture</h1> </div> | <div class="page-header" > <h1>A historical introduction to the foundations of culture</h1> </div> | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
<div class="row"> | <div class="row"> | ||
| − | <div class="col-md-3"><h2> | + | <div class="col-md-3"><h2>Movement is relative</h2></div> |
| − | <div class="col-md-6">< | + | <div class="col-md-6"> |
| − | < | + | <p>When Galileo issued his most celebrated claim, <em>eppur si muove</em> (and yet it moves), while in house arrest, we today might be tempted to say that he was just voicing an "objective" truth, how the things "really were, in reality". This matter, however, can be seen in more than way. Faithful to our axiom (that "knowledge must be <em>federated</em>"), we now present an angle that, from our contemporary point of view, might easily appear sacrilegious, and make a case for (what might have been) the view of Galileo's persecutors; and also the ones of Socrates. While there can be no doubt that both were at least in part defending their contemporary <em>power structures</em>, and their own positions in it, there is more to this story than meets the eye. </p> |
| − | < | + | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Galilei.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Galileo Galilei]]</center></small></div> |
| − | |||
| − | < | ||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | |||
| − | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File: | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
<div class="row"> | <div class="row"> | ||
<div class="col-md-3"></div> | <div class="col-md-3"></div> | ||
| − | <div class="col-md-7"> | + | <div class="col-md-7"><h2>The issue was never "objective reality"</h2> |
| − | <p>But our industries have been able to separate this emotion from its purposes. They created games that engage only "other psychological tendencies", so that the effort of attention that sustains a moral act is never experienced; which keep children's attention <em>away</em> from reality; which exercise no more than their thumbs and their rear ends; whose ethical message is that killing is fun; and which are so "immersive" that they make everything else – and school in particular – seem dull in comparison.</p> | + | <p>The fact that motion is relative is elementary; we can place the coordinate system in any way we please. So why not place it right at the center of our beloved home planet—and let it move together with her?</p> |
| + | <p>The reason is that we would then not be able to <em>comprehend</em> the astrophysical world in the way we do now. The reason is that in such an order of things <em>science would not be possible</p>. | ||
| + | <p>It was, in other words, the empowerment of the human reason to comprehend the physical phenomena, that determined what "reality" ended up being—and not some more "objective" reason.</p> | ||
| + | <p>The problem with this change of <em>foundation</em> was that so much of human culture—which was founded in <em>respect</em> for tradition, and its beliefs, values, rituals... that people were <em>socialized</em> to accept as "reality"—had lost its foundations! Notice that both Galilei and Socrates were tried for "impiety". Why be unselfish? Because God sent his own Son to teach us charity...</p> | ||
| + | </div> </div> | ||
| + | <div class="row"> | ||
| + | <div class="col-md-3"></div> | ||
| + | <div class="col-md-6"> | ||
| + | <p>When Nietzsche proclaimed, famously, he did that in part to point to our new challenge, and responsibility—to <em>found</em> those various elements of culture, that relied on the existence of God, in this new epistemological order of things. </p> | ||
| + | <p>We did not listen.</p> | ||
| + | <p>Perhaps we'll listen now?</p> | ||
| + | </div> | ||
| + | <div class="col-md-3 round-images"> [[File:Nietzsche.jpg]] <br><small><center>[[Friedrich Nietzsche]]</center></small></div> | ||
| + | |||
| + | </div> </div> | ||
| + | |||
| + | <!-- | ||
| + | |||
| + | But our industries have been able to separate this emotion from its purposes. They created games that engage only "other psychological tendencies", so that the effort of attention that sustains a moral act is never experienced; which keep children's attention <em>away</em> from reality; which exercise no more than their thumbs and their rear ends; whose ethical message is that killing is fun; and which are so "immersive" that they make everything else – and school in particular – seem dull in comparison.</p> | ||
<p>What will prevent our young ones from virtually <em>living</em> in the virtual world? Success is there so much easier to experience. And even the ultimate failure can be erased by just pressing the restart button!</p> | <p>What will prevent our young ones from virtually <em>living</em> in the virtual world? Success is there so much easier to experience. And even the ultimate failure can be erased by just pressing the restart button!</p> | ||
<h3>It's a complex world</h3> | <h3>It's a complex world</h3> | ||
Revision as of 08:00, 9 May 2020
A historical introduction to the foundations of culture
Movement is relative
When Galileo issued his most celebrated claim, eppur si muove (and yet it moves), while in house arrest, we today might be tempted to say that he was just voicing an "objective" truth, how the things "really were, in reality". This matter, however, can be seen in more than way. Faithful to our axiom (that "knowledge must be federated"), we now present an angle that, from our contemporary point of view, might easily appear sacrilegious, and make a case for (what might have been) the view of Galileo's persecutors; and also the ones of Socrates. While there can be no doubt that both were at least in part defending their contemporary power structures, and their own positions in it, there is more to this story than meets the eye.
The issue was never "objective reality"
The fact that motion is relative is elementary; we can place the coordinate system in any way we please. So why not place it right at the center of our beloved home planet—and let it move together with her?
The reason is that we would then not be able to comprehend the astrophysical world in the way we do now. The reason is that in such an order of things science would not be possible</p>.
<p>It was, in other words, the empowerment of the human reason to comprehend the physical phenomena, that determined what "reality" ended up being—and not some more "objective" reason.</p>
<p>The problem with this change of foundation was that so much of human culture—which was founded in respect for tradition, and its beliefs, values, rituals... that people were socialized to accept as "reality"—had lost its foundations! Notice that both Galilei and Socrates were tried for "impiety". Why be unselfish? Because God sent his own Son to teach us charity...</p>
</div> </div>
<p>When Nietzsche proclaimed, famously, he did that in part to point to our new challenge, and responsibility—to found those various elements of culture, that relied on the existence of God, in this new epistemological order of things. </p>
<p>We did not listen.</p>
<p>Perhaps we'll listen now?</p>
