NationStates Jolt Archive

How does the NS crowd feel about humanity entering (or having entered) an "Age of Unreason"?

Feel free to define the term to your own reasonable extent, and address the issue as a either a global condition or as specific to a nation.

I don't think we have; technology presses forward and we're constantly setting new heights in the sciences and mathematics, along with philosophy and literature. If anything, the seeming rise in fundamentalism is only notable because of the development of new ideas and technology; it's a sign that things are progressing to new and controversial ground, and that's a sign of progress.

It's a worrying trend that so many people see the world in black and white again.

Whenever that happened in history, it just culminated in war and everyone being worse off.

Terrorism is not a threat, but the "threat of terrorism" is. And the kind of mindset that comes from it can not possibly be a good thing with China and India becoming world powers and eventually challenging for resources and influence.

I wish to make it quite clear that "Unreason" isnt a word.
If this is an age of ignorance... well then i guess you are a part of it

I wish to make it quite clear that "Unreason" isnt a word.

If this is an age of iggnorace... well then i guess you are a part of it

And you have confirmed it...:p

I wish to make it quite clear that "Unreason" isnt a word.

Hey, if its good enough for the Collins Concise Dictionary of the English Language (Second Edition, 1989) it should be good enough for you.

Perhaps it is "unreasonable" to assume that America is going to have its power and wealth forever. Given the number of other countries cathcing up economically and all of our jobs being outsourced it seems that we could go downhill at some point quite suddenly.

Does it seem like everything is made in China? Isn't anything made HERE?

I don't think we have; technology presses forward and we're constantly setting new heights in the sciences and mathematics, along with philosophy and literature. If anything, the seeming rise in fundamentalism is only notable because of the development of new ideas and technology; it's a sign that things are progressing to new and controversial ground, and that's a sign of progress.

Progress is another illusion... Just because we have new technology, doesn't mean we have any new thought processes. It just means we have more toys to play with (or blow up the universe with).

Age of Unreason. I don't know. But it is surely Dark Times we are entering...

Maybe the Age of Mass Brainwashing?

I don't think we have; technology presses forward and we're constantly setting new heights in the sciences and mathematics, along with philosophy and literature. If anything, the seeming rise in fundamentalism is only notable because of the development of new ideas and technology; it's a sign that things are progressing to new and controversial ground, and that's a sign of progress.

That's interesting...might we say that fundamentalism expresses itself in a more overt fashion because it may feel threatened by the advent of secular reasoning as a self-sufficient ideology?

Or maybe fundamentalism could be joined by some as a response to the intensity or sudden shock of shifts brought on by advances in science and/or technology...

1: Wow i was owned by my own post... lol

2: Unreason is NOT a word, Unreasonable is

3: Not everything is made in china, and in the US we make "wealth"

It's a worrying trend that so many people see the world in black and white again.

Whenever that happened in history, it just culminated in war and everyone being worse off.

Terrorism is not a threat, but the "threat of terrorism" is. And the kind of mindset that comes from it can not possibly be a good thing with China and India becoming world powers and eventually challenging for resources and influence.

Ok so how does say 2 billion more gas consumers be a good thing?

...
Maybe the Age of Mass Brainwashing?
MegaMarketing?

Perhaps it is "unreasonable" to assume that America is going to have its power and wealth forever. Given the number of other countries cathcing up economically and all of our jobs being outsourced it seems that we could go downhill at some point quite suddenly.

Does it seem like everything is made in China? Isn't anything made HERE?

Yes, but many of those products aren't consumer goods. People want that Chinese-made TV for $200 rather than the American one for $1,000, which is why so many consumer goods are made in China, because it's cheaper and of the same quality, making it more competitive.

We manufacture many things, but they're not consumer goods. They're things like machinery, computer chips, servers, industrial robots, electronic componets/equipment...all kinds of high-tech and business products, especially telecom equipment. Effectively, the cutting edge and high-education, high skill work is dominated by the US.

How does the NS crowd feel about humanity entering (or having entered) an "Age of Unreason"?

Feel free to define the term to your own reasonable extent, and address the issue as a either a global condition or as specific to a nation.

You want me to be reasonable in this day and age? Nuts to that!

2: Unreason is NOT a word, Unreasonable is


unreason n. 1. irrationality or madness. 2. something that lacks or is contrary to reason. 3. lack of order or chaos.

Take it up with the aforementioned publishers if the Collins dictionary. I think you'll lose.

Wow i guess i am wrong... never knew that

Wow i guess i am wrong... never knew that

teh interweb is a importent tule four edukashun.

Yes, but many of those products aren't consumer goods. People want that Chinese-made TV for $200 rather than the American one for $1,000, which is why so many consumer goods are made in China, because it's cheaper and of the same quality, making it more competitive.

We manufacture many things, but they're not consumer goods. They're things like machinery, computer chips, servers, industrial robots, electronic componets/equipment...all kinds of high-tech and business products, especially telecom equipment. Effectively, the cutting edge and high-education, high skill work is dominated by the US.

Japan has the technology edge which is why everything with quality is made in Japan and all of the crappier stuff we can buy is made in China. I think even car parts are made somewhere else then assembled in the States. We're just dependent on imports so I still think we are in trouble.

I wish to make it quite clear that "Unreason" isnt a word.
If this is an age of ignorance... well then i guess you are a part of it


unreason: noun. 1. Lack of reason or sanity: irrational. 2. Nonsense: absurdity


- Webster's Dictionary, copyright 1995

EDIT: Oops, sorry, you already know, my bad.

..... Effectively, the cutting edge and high-education, high skill work is dominated by the US.
For a few years more. Then it is over.

All right i am wrong

That's interesting...might we say that fundamentalism expresses itself in a more overt fashion because it may feel threatened by the advent of secular reasoning as a self-sufficient ideology?

Fundamentalism is the fear of change; every step towards secularization has been met by reactionary religious movements, for example the Wahabis in late Dark Age Arabia or Savanarola in Renaissance Florence.

Or maybe fundamentalism could be joined by some as a response to the intensity or sudden shock of shifts brought on by advances in science and/or technology...

I believe you are correct. People feel threatened by sudden change, making them more willing to adopt radical ideas to feel secure and part of something rather than, in their opinion, scattered to the winds of change.

Japan has the technology edge which is why everything with quality is made in Japan and all of the crappier stuff we can buy is made in China. I think even car parts are made somewhere else then assembled in the States. We're just dependent on imports so I still think we are in trouble.

Japan actually does most of its manufacturing in the US; their companies are some of the biggest net insourcers of jobs in to this country from abroad.

It's certainly the Age of Mass Communication. From the late 19th C, you've got mass literacy and newspapers, the cinema, development and inexpense of radio and then television, latterly the internet.

This lets all ideas be spread much quicker. And some of the worst ones have the best packaging, appealing to the basest instincts of us all - and with mass communication, that's a lot of 'all'!

So, it might also be the Age of Poisoned Thought.

(with acknowledgements)

We manufacture many things, but they're not consumer goods. They're things like machinery, computer chips, servers, industrial robots, electronic componets/equipment...all kinds of high-tech and business products, especially telecom equipment. Effectively, the cutting edge and high-education, high skill work is dominated by the US.

Chip production is not mainly US anymore.

In the EDA market, the software writers are mainly Hindu and Asian. Not to many Americans. I have been in two companies that are major players. I have a friend in another and he reports the same thing.

American managment wants profit above all else as such we import people and send work overseas. We have been training our competitors......

Japan actually does most of its manufacturing in the US; their companies are some of the biggest net insourcers of jobs in to this country from abroad.

Manufactoring as assembling.

And what job count are we talking about here. Much of their stuff is robotic.....

Finally, ok we have their manufactoring. Where is the greator wealth heading?

All right i am wrong

I sympathize with the idea that maybe "unreason" shouldn't be a word. Sometimes, it feels like we're doing a Don King on the language, and stringing together syllabyles with a recklessly modular freedom.

Like, I once heard an Human Resources rep use the word "orientationing", I really felt like "orienting" might have been better.

Its definitely an irregular sounding word (unreason), but it seemed like the one to convey the idea here.

For a few years more. Then it is over.

Maybe, depending on how we respond. The US is still the world's strongest economy, albeit not the fastest growing, and we've got the resources to make ourselves more competitive. The thing is, we have to stop propping up companies with subsidies, and we need to put more money in to math/science education to remain leaders in the Information era.

At the same time, the nation needs to reform its tax structure (American corporations actually pay 3x higher effective taxes than Sweden due to how screwy our code is), update the Telecom Act, and increase foreign-worker permits to attract top talent from other nations. Fiscal discipline is also important. This country has a lot going for it, but we can easily lose it if we're not careful.

However, you have to rememer that America became powerful in the same way India and China are. We did the same quality work equal or better for less money, and put huge effort in to taking the technological edge over competitors. Britain had similar experiences with outsourcing of manufacturing jobs well over a century before we did, because of the US.

Manufactoring as assembling.
And what job count are we talking about here. Much of their stuff is robotic.....

Japanese car companies employ something like 300,000 people, many of which are in the assembly sector.

Finally, ok we have their manufactoring. Where is the greator wealth heading?

Our economy is growing strongly, and our productivity is soaring. Japan's economy is in at best a weak economy, is burdened by a gigantic budget deficit, and has slowing productivity. We're doing far better than they are.

It's a worrying trend that so many people see the world in black and white again.

Whenever that happened in history, it just culminated in war and everyone being worse off.

Terrorism is not a threat, but the "threat of terrorism" is. And the kind of mindset that comes from it can not possibly be a good thing with China and India becoming world powers and eventually challenging for resources and influence.

This is also interesting.

Could we call it the "Age of Perception Being Narrowed As a Means of Substituting Simplification for Rigorous Examination of the World"?

No, no...that will sound like shit in the history books...

How does the NS crowd feel about humanity entering (or having entered) an "Age of Unreason"?

Feel free to define the term to your own reasonable extent, and address the issue as a either a global condition or as specific to a nation.

I think that if you have a pleasantly twisted sense of humor, we are in for a very entertaining ride. :)

Perhaps it is "unreasonable" to assume that America is going to have its power and wealth forever.

Although the details, timing, and nature of America's decline are beyond my projection, I think you statement is very sound.

Japanese car companies employ something like 300,000 people, many of which are in the assembly sector.



Our economy is growing strongly, and our productivity is soaring. Japan's economy is in at best a weak economy, is burdened by a gigantic budget deficit, and has slowing productivity. We're doing far better than they are.

Hmpf. You are about the only one I hear saying things are good. People around here say things are mediocre if not bad(sillicon valley).

I would be curious to how they measure productivity. Especially when work is heading over seas. Do they include those numbers?

This is also interesting.

Could we call it the "Age of Perception Being Narrowed As a Means of Substituting Simplification for Rigorous Examination of the World"?


An argument could be made for this label being equally applicable to any other period in human history, other than possibly during those global conflicts of the early and mid C20th, but even then most people were actually focused on their powdered egg or where they would get fresh socks rather than global politics...

Elgesh']It's certainly the Age of Mass Communication. From the late 19th C, you've got mass literacy and newspapers, the cinema, development and inexpense of radio and then television, latterly the internet.

This lets all ideas be spread much quicker. And some of the worst ones have the best packaging, appealing to the basest instincts of us all - and with mass communication, that's a lot of 'all'!

So, it might also be the Age of Poisoned Thought.

(with acknowledgements)

This is quite salient, in my opinion. Maybe the "Age of the Media Molded Mind"?

No, no...alliteration is the refuge of the unoriginal (hee).

Although the details, timing, and nature of America's decline are beyond my projection, I think you statement is very sound.

Assuming that anything human made will last forever is generally a bad idea.

An argument could be made for this label being equally applicable to any other period in human history, other than possibly during those global conflicts of the early and mid C20th, but even then most people were actually focused on their powdered egg or where they would get fresh socks rather than global politics...

Were such an argument to be made, I believe I would accept it. I failed to take the premise of "unreason" into its relative context in history.

Powdered eggs?

Powdered eggs?

A commonplace during WWII rationing in the UK.

Assuming that anything human made will last forever is generally a bad idea.

Oh I don't know. Those Greek statues and the Pyramids seem to be doing ok. :p

This is quite salient, in my opinion. Maybe the "Age of the Media Molded Mind"?

No, no...alliteration is the refuge of the unoriginal (hee).

Cheers, man - I was quite proud of it myself :)

If you want to use allitoration, it'd really need to be in the poetic form. Maybe if they wrote future history books in stanzas rather than chapters...? :p

Hmpf. You are about the only one I hear saying things are good. People around here say things are mediocre if not bad(sillicon valley).

The situation in Silicon Valley is quite poor, so I can understand where you're coming from quite well. The technology boom is one of my favorite subjects, so I know quite a bit about the region's plight. It's different in other places like Austin, where a lot of IT hiring is occuring, but Silicon Valley was the one hit hardest by the dot-com bubble and so is cursed with a kind of stagnation. Personally, I feel some of it is just a bias left over from the crash that keeps people away.

However, if Google keeps up its hiring spree there might be hope. They're starting to ignite hiring in other companies again, so perhaps the situation might improve.

I would be curious to how they measure productivity. Especially when work is heading over seas. Do they include those numbers?

Productivity is measured by taking output and dividing it by labor costs, and comparing that to the prior period. The data is also adjusted for inflation. Productivity can be a good measure of economic strength, and controls inflation by keeping labor costs low (ideally, labor costs would remain low while income grows, which is what occured during the productivity boom of the 90's). However, if productivity grows faster than the economy, it can actually put people out of work. This does, to a degree, explain why the labor market was stagnant for 2002 and 2003 but abruptly began to recover in 2004.

A commonplace during WWII rationing in the UK.

You can find that in the US. You have to becareful about ordering scrambled eggs at some places. ;)

Oh I don't know. Those Greek statues and the Pyramids seem to be doing ok. :p

Indeed, such as Princess Neferuptah's pyramid and the Colossus of Rhodes?

You can find that in the US.

I can imagine that it saw something of a sales peak and then subsequent slump in 1999 and 2000.

Here's an interesting question. How pervasive does Reason have to be to be considered the defining element of an Age?

For example, suppose a civilization's general population eschewed Reason for whatever we might call "Unreason", but a small segment of the population persued Reason with such excellence and sincerity that it was advanced to a greater extent than during a period in which Reason was widely admired, but sought with mediocre ability?

That is to say, if the aggregate achievement of "reason" within a culture is greater, but concentrated in a small portion of the people, is that good or bad?

Here's an interesting question. How pervasive does Reason have to be to be considered the defining element of an Age?

The Age of Reason AKA the Enlightenment shows that 'Reason' does not need to be dominant to the world as a whole, it just needs to find a new energy within certain intellectual circles to earn such a nomenclature.

Elgesh']If you want to use allitoration, it'd really need to be in the poetic form. Maybe if they wrote future history books in stanzas rather than chapters...? :p

Weren't there some ancient civilizations that recorded history in some kind of lyrical form? Well, a blend of history, mythology, tradition, I would imagine.

"Today, the Secretary of State
Renounced the Purveyors of Hate,
The Opposition Replied,
Nebulous Buzz Words to Characterize the Opposition as Categorically Evil in Their Ideology Does Not Serve the Purpose of Achieving An End To Hostilities...and uh, 3 more bird-flu birds died."

The situation in Silicon Valley is quite poor, so I can understand where you're coming from quite well. The technology boom is one of my favorite subjects, so I know quite a bit about the region's plight. It's different in other places like Austin, where a lot of IT hiring is occuring, but Silicon Valley was the one hit hardest by the dot-com bubble and so is cursed with a kind of stagnation. Personally, I feel some of it is just a bias left over from the crash that keeps people away.

However, if Google keeps up its hiring spree there might be hope. They're starting to ignite hiring in other companies again, so perhaps the situation might improve.

Productivity is measured by taking output and dividing it by labor costs, and comparing that to the prior period. The data is also adjusted for inflation. Productivity can be a good measure of economic strength, and controls inflation by keeping labor costs low (ideally, labor costs would remain low while income grows, which is what occured during the productivity boom of the 90's). However, if productivity grows faster than the economy, it can actually put people out of work. This does, to a degree, explain why the labor market was stagnant for 2002 and 2003 but abruptly began to recover in 2004.

Ahh econ is not one of my major things.

The valley does have some major problems. I don't know about other companies but two of our recent products were created in other countries. No new product development is happening here.

What's killing the valley is real estate costs as well. Average home in a "decent" area is $700000. Schools are crap so if you want to educate your kids you have private or homeschool. Let's not talk about day care. :(

We have to put our kid in a public school and the wife has to go back to work. :(

I don't know if we will ever recover. Much of the spirit I knew seems to be gone. The HP way is dead. Apple is the highest priced computer(business wise)......

Sometimes I think our time has eclipsed as I really don't see inovation or new ideas well if you don't count ring tones and cell phone games but even those are elsewhere.

Only thing happening is Google but they have an up and coming challenger with that search engine in China.

Doom and Gloom Doom and Gloom! :p

The Age of Reason AKA the Enlightenment shows that 'Reason' does not need to be dominant to the world as a whole, it just needs to find a new energy within certain intellectual circles to earn such a nomenclature.

Seems fair.

If there is a contrary segment seeking to counter "Reason", and does so such that the vector of their efforts is equal in magnitude and opposite in goal, can they cancel the effects of the intellectual circles?

Say, some group of people decided that absolutist belief in Morty Fleggenheimer and his Sacred List of 37 Things Now Forbidden and Not to Be Debated, and they convinced a majorative portion of the population to go along, can they cancel the effects of the reasonable few? (I mean as far as how history will view the Age...like, will this now be the Age of Morty?)

Weren't there some ancient civilizations that recorded history in some kind of lyrical form? Well, a blend of history, mythology, tradition, I would imagine.

Off the top of my head... the Icelanders, the Greeks, the Anglo-Saxons, the Irish, the Persians, Sumerians, Assyrians ... I'm sure that it was pretty much the norm until the post-Socratic greeks such as Herodotus* started employing the prose styles to which we are now more used.


* technically pretty much contemporaneous with Socrates, but hey.

Off the top of my head... the Icelanders, the Greeks, the Anglo-Saxons, the Irish, the Persians, Sumerians, Assyrians ... I'm sure that it was pretty much the norm until the post-Socratic greeks such as Herodotus* started employing the prose styles to which we are now more used.


* technically pretty much contemporaneous with Socrates, but hey.

I wonder what will happen when history just takes Blog form...

Well I view reason and intelligence as two seperate issues. Intelligence is overall knowledge and the capacity to gain more knowledge over a period of time. Reason on the other hand, I have viewed as the ability to judge what one knows or is learning, and whether or not to believe it. If you follow that thought process, then yes I believe that we have reached an age of unreason, due to the fact that we have had several cases of "Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide " which people have signed petitions over. (For those of you who dont know, Dihydrogen Monoxide Oxide is water). If you don’t believe me, you can even see some of it at http://www.snopes.com/toxins/dhmo.htm , http://www.dhmo.org/. This shows that the average person doesn't think about what they do, even if they have the knowledge to do otherwise.

This shows that the average person doesn't think about what they do, even if they have the knowledge to do otherwise.

There's certainly evidence of that, but is this habituation stronger now than at other points in history? Does a 15th century average person not have this characteristic?

Maybe its information overload...so much is presented as fact, the sheer volume of data being blasted at us makes it difficult to apply diligent skepticism...

How does the NS crowd feel about humanity entering (or having entered) an "Age of Unreason"?

Feel free to define the term to your own reasonable extent, and address the issue as a either a global condition or as specific to a nation.

I don't see the basis for that title. I grant the rise of fundamentalism but it is simply rising like it has thousands of times before. WWII and the nationalistic and racial fundamentalism of the nazis was only 60 years ago. The cold war after that seemed even more like the age of unreason with the Mutual Assured Destruction idealology. In the future as people have said India and China will rise in power and vie for global superpower status. The United states will eventually fall but our military is so large and advanced it could never happen peacefully. I can't think of any military in history with as much dominance as the United States and certainly countries in jeopardy with military supremacy tend to use it as their lifestyles are threatened.

If you mean age as in the last 100 years I can see more of a case for the title but I wouldn't call the crusades, inquisition, annihilation of native americans, or the great western schism instances of reason. People are and always have been unreasonable in almost every major aspect of relation to eachother.

We are entering an age of mass communication and socialization. People don't function independantly anymore in progressive countries. Most of what is used and made and discovered is piggy-backed off technologies the current creators may not even fully understand or be able to reproduce. It is the age of social dependance.

Age of Unreason eh?

Sounds dumb. Not as good as Iron Age.

is that really how we're going to be remembered in 200 years? The Unreason Age?

eesh. Kind of makes me want to somehow get a mass Viking movement again, so we can be the Second Viking Age.. at least then we'd have a V in our age.

We are entering an age of mass communication and socialization. People don't function independantly anymore in progressive countries. Most of what is used and made and discovered is piggy-backed off technologies the current creators may not even fully understand or be able to reproduce. It is the age of social dependance.

Interesting. As time goes on, could humanity reach some stage of development wherein the individual can contain, understand, and expand on the entirety of previous achievement, independently? Might be a while, I guess.

Will the individual ever be able to become independent of society without regressing to some kind of primitive means? Will the Age of Social Dependence end? (I mean, without society ending...)

Eh, humanity has allways been unreasonable. So much so that I think historians have considered it historically uninteresting and give special focus to the reasonable ones, while of cours, mentioning the extraordinarly unreasonable people who have shaped history. I think people read history and see all the amazing things that have happened and think that the people back then were somehow more reasonable. They forget that most of these people had to fight numerous unreasonable people to accomplish what they did. Hey, just think of how people like Galileo were treated.

My hypothesis (only semiserious):
Evolution doesn't select for the best adapted to survive. It selects for the good enough, until something better comes along and then it will select for that, but then falls back on selecting for the good enough. I think the same goes for societies. Our society currently survives, not because its the best it could be, but because its good enough. Our society will continue to walk the fine line of having just enough reasonable people to survive. Simply because it takes effort to be more reasonable so is unlikely to exist unless necessary. Our society will continue to walk that fine line until some major event happens calling for us to work a little bit better, and it's possible our society won't have enough resonable people left to deal with the trama and will colapse. But that is okay, because now we are under selective pressure to become more reasonable. A new more reasonable society will come forth, which will eventually decay in reaonability as it becomes less necessary. I think this sort of thing happens, but I'm simplifying it by saying its all about reason, when I think other virtues in a society are involved in the process.

Age of Unreason eh?

Sounds dumb. Not as good as Iron Age.

is that really how we're going to be remembered in 200 years? The Unreason Age?

eesh. Kind of makes me want to somehow get a mass Viking movement again, so we can be the Second Viking Age.. at least then we'd have a V in our age.

Well, maybe we could work to bring about the age of Very Easy Safe Available Sex with Very Attractive Partners and uh...Better Tasting Vegetables. That way, lots of people are happy and we don't have to make boats.

But that is okay, because now we are under selective pressure to become more reasonable. A new more reasonable society will come forth, which will eventually decay in reaonability as it becomes less necessary. I think this sort of thing happens, but I'm simplifying it by saying its all about reason, when I think other virtues in a society are involved in the process.

Elaborate on the selective pressure to become more reasonable, I find that idea compelling.

Elaborate on the selective pressure to become more reasonable, I find that idea compelling.

Well I haven't thought it out very well, but I thought the way my mind was moving was sort of ammusing so I posted. That's why I said I was only semiserious.

But anyway I think it goes something like this. When a society becomes totally unreasonable a lot of crazy stuff happens that tears it apart or everyone decides to be uniformily unreasonable and society sort of moves in an unreasonable direction as a whole but eventually comes into problems because their way of dealing with the world simply doesn't work.

If a society acts unreasonable enough it may be destroyed by other societies acting out against it. Presumably these societies are more reasonable so hense reasonability is selected for. For example a country may decide to start conquering its neighbors thinking it needs to unite all people of one race. Other countries may think that these lunatics sound too much like Nazi's and decide to take them out before it gets more out of hand. So reason eventually wins in such a case.

Well I'm not sure unreasonable is the best term here, but a society may have unreasonable ideas (that is be simply incorrect) about how the world works. A sort of far out example may be that it become convinced that the Sun god is coming and focus all its efforts building a temple for him. The society may be near starvation. Only spending just enough time farming to barely get by so that the rest of its efforts can focus on building the temple. But then a drought occurs and they have no way to deal with the famin that results. Eventually this society will colapse. But more reasonable people, that realized that effort still needed to be placed on farming, are more likely to survive (since they were probably still farming) and they will rise up and rebuild on the remains of the previous society.

Or a more realistic example may be that s Christian society becomes convinced that the rapture is about to occur. They may then decide to stop working and wait (even though the more reasonable Christians know that the Bible discourages such behavior). So society may just stop and simply die out all because people misread the signs and thought the end times where here when they weren't. Reasonable people would continue to work and rebuild the society afterwords.

I think overall reason is selected for when a society runs into problems, but when a society builds itself up enough it becomes easy to maintain and needs reasonable people around less and less.

I think I could make an even better argument with creativity. Saying that creative problem solving isn't necessary during the everyday events of a society so the society may progressively get lax in that area. It just needs to keep doing what it has been doing to survive. But when a disaster strikes it is creative problem solving that is needed to get out of it. So creativity is selected for when the society is under stress.

I think overall reason is selected for when a society runs into problems, but when a society builds itself up enough it becomes easy to maintain and needs reasonable people around less and less.
.

That would seem to favor the value of social stressors that are better endured by reason, enhancing the utility of reason itself.

(I contrast that with stressors that are better survived by obstinate insistance on unfounded but socially mandated ideas).

The rapture example is very illustrative; for some reason it reminds me of an old short story, "Nightfall", where an entire planet loses its shit because all of its many suns set at once, and they can't cope. It would be quite interesting if aliens beamed up a huge portion of the populace, and everyone thought it was the rapture, and reacted accordingly...

Well, maybe we could work to bring about the age of Very Easy Safe Available Sex with Very Attractive Partners and uh...Better Tasting Vegetables. That way, lots of people are happy and we don't have to make boats.

thats at least 5 times better than the Viking age, but I think that one may've been taken.. damn generation before the Baby Boomers.

We could poke out the left eye of every male and cut off their right leg, mass produce parrots, hooks, and skull and crossbone flags, even.. Then we'd have the Easy Safe Available Sex with (usually) Very Attractive Partners, and pirates!

As it stands now though, unreason, kind of bland. How 'bout the age that modern medicine reversed microevolution?

Interesting. As time goes on, could humanity reach some stage of development wherein the individual can contain, understand, and expand on the entirety of previous achievement, independently? Might be a while, I guess.

Will the individual ever be able to become independent of society without regressing to some kind of primitive means? Will the Age of Social Dependence end? (I mean, without society ending...)


In answer to the first part I don't think so. It would take some sort of advancement in the structure and workings of the human brain, it is just too much information to understand the entirety of previous achievement independently. Not to mention much of that information is and will be lost and only the product of it will remain. Perhaps this could be possible with future evolution or some sort of matrix style improvement on the brain in which you can input information (to save time with techological and mechanical workings and understanding). Who knows, in short, I don't think so though.

The second part is more interesting I think. I don't think this is possible at all because humans are only smart in the first place due to our extremely advanced social interaction. Our ideas are expressed because we are telling them to other people (thus the forums haha). Last I check the current resoning for the expansion of our brains is to hold the complexities of a social network (who likes who and how they will interact with eachother as well as knowing them in the first place) which takes more brain power than it did to create the simple tools we started with. Following this train of thought, becoming independant of society and it's even more advanced social structures would be a regression of some sort. Is not becoming independent of society ending it no matter what anyways, at least for whoever is independent? It is more likely that we will continue on this path.

. I don't think this is possible at all because humans are only smart in the first place due to our extremely advanced social interaction. Our ideas are expressed because we are telling them to other people (thus the forums haha). Last I check the current resoning for the expansion of our brains is to hold the complexities of a social network (who likes who and how they will interact with eachother as well as knowing them in the first place) which takes more brain power than it did to create the simple tools we started with. Following this train of thought, becoming independant of society and it's even more advanced social structures would be a regression of some sort. Is not becoming independent of society ending it no matter what anyways, at least for whoever is independent? It is more likely that we will continue on this path.

Yes, the mechanism of an individual posessing the sum of human understanding would almost certainly have to involve some sort of advance that would probably necessitate the human cognition becoming something that might no longer be human.

Its a interesting point about how much of our intellect really is social, in application and develoment. Certainly, isolation would take its toll, since the static posession of knowledge is not the same as being able to debate, refine, and expand an idea in the crucible of discourse and peer-reviewed exchange.

Perhaps a socially "independent" person wouldn't have to be completely withdrawn, but simply have the capacity to exist at a high-functioning level and without society, if for some reason they chose to. Certainly, the ability to satisfy one's material needs without resort to the collective economy would be a kind of independence, but it brings to mind trite images of some hedonistic tub, scarfing grapes on a private moon with robotic butlers and pleasure drones everywhere. I think the idea I'm looking for is more one who has achieved a kind of mental and physical autonomy, wherein social interaction has value but not necessity...

It's a worrying trend that so many people see the world in black and white again.

Whenever that happened in history, it just culminated in war and everyone being worse off.

Terrorism is not a threat, but the "threat of terrorism" is. And the kind of mindset that comes from it can not possibly be a good thing with China and India becoming world powers and eventually challenging for resources and influence.

Now c'mon Leonstein, I expected better than this from you. After all, most philosophers are black and white: Marx is black and white, Jesus is black and white, Kant is black and white. In each case, there are things that will and won't happen in history, are and not godly, and are and are not in accord with moral rightness.

The real problem isn't that they are seeing something that isn't there: in order to make sense of the world at all, you have to assume some kind of privileged "right" account of it. The problem is really that lots of people are standing against giants of the past like Kant, Aristotle, and Jesus in saying what the "right" account is.

Let go your goofy post-modernism, Leonstein, and act out of reason.

Jesus is black and white

No, I'm pretty sure Jesus was half-black, half-Jewish.

Sorry, seriously, though...

What are we considering black and white? For me, the connotation includes a sort of "We're supercool, and those guys over there suck ass", but a less polarized view might be "We're cool, but we're fighting with those guys, so they seem less cool, but let's investigate their perspective, not granting it validity, a priori, but rather regarding it as a view held by other humans and thus worth some kind of consideration".

Also, I'm not sure I'm completely on board with the "giants of the past" thing, only because it might be difficult to arrive at a consensus on the actual list.

Kant's on my read list, but down several slots. What is Kant's view on Jesus? Will they share giant status amicably?

I strongly question the cultural assumption that reason = good and unreason = bad. I disagree with Christian fundamentalists, for example, but not so much because of their irrational beliefs (which were once considered absolute truth) but because they want to limit freedom. What we consider rational today was heresy yesterday and may well be nonsense tomorrow.

I strongly question the cultural assumption that reason = good and unreason = bad. I disagree with Christian fundamentalists, for example, but not so much because of their irrational beliefs (which were once considered absolute truth) but because they want to limit freedom. What we consider rational today was heresy yesterday and may well be nonsense tomorrow.

Well, I've tried to leave the definition of "reason" open, and kept it in quotes to imply a certain relativism. Certainly, orthodoxies and beliefs change, but I think by "reason", I'm hoping to include the idea of a rigorous, instrospective, analytical methodology that serves as a sort of meta-ideology, a means to examine one's own beliefs critically, but with a firm and well-defined self-consistency.

Overall, you a make good point, though; the formal logics of one group or time won't be embraced by everybody, so I'll admit I'm looking for an overly idealized view of "reason". I will admit completely to a cultural bias of using "unreasonable" and "bad" as terms whose intersection is very large.

Certainly, "reason" as a concept exists in and is filtered through the human state, and perhaps cannot be assumed to be of self-evident value.

That said, the Age can be named anything you'd like, don't feel restricted to the "reason or unreason" spectrum.