If there were ever a post to elude a specific category here on ScienceBlogs, this would be it. If it were simply a "hey, I'm back from the mountains" post, I could stick it under "Chatter". But sometimes, visiting remote regions, like mist shrouded mountains or vast, dry swaths of blowing sand can cause one to reflect on many things.... including the big picture, the synthesis of it all. I did quite a bit of that this past week, including when I saw the comments on my Schrodinger's Apple post. When I set it to repost, I didn't expect such thoughtful response. I'd like to address those comments here, rather than making a post-sized comment there. Besides, it all fits together, one way or another. I'll also be able to sort out some of the subjects that I'll be writing about in the coming months. Considering these things, I decided "Philosophy" would be the best category.
I'll start with the "Apple" comments, because that piece, discussing uncertainty in morality, seems to have struck a chord. First, the comments and the post (which I hadn't looked at in a while) both resonated with some of the things that have been troubling me lately. It seems that as advanced as our knowledge has become, we've lost something, and we're now struggling to find it. We are the same people, in essence, as those who came before us. Each of us has struggled for survival, to adapt to the changing world around us. The only hope in that struggle truly seems to be that we aren't alone... we adapt with those around us. Still, many things have changed.
Maybe in the past, it was easier to accept a code defining behavior from some higher authority. There wasn't much need to question that authority. Why question the king when the king takes care of you? He knows best, right? If everyone thinks otherwise, we toss him out and get a new king. It happens. So, there we were, for thousands of years, following some written or unwritten code, handed down without explanation from above. Some would question it, but rarely the culture at large. Eventually, the questioners grew in number, refined their techniques, and began to dissect the codes.
In the twentieth century, science uncovered deep flaws in the established codes. With an understanding of genetics and evolution, we looked at our fellow people and realized we were truly equal... and all the archaic, cobweb covered codes, spoken or not, defining discrimination began to fall apart. With a variety of sciences studying our planet, we began to learn that there is no such thing as a "free" gift from nature... there is always a price to pay, we saw.... and more of those codes fell apart. Even our anthropocentric views, which suited us so fine for all those thousands of years were at stake, as cosmologists showed us the scope and grandeur of our universe. Even those who still felt a higher authority was beyond us all couldn't argue with the big bang, that point of beginning. The old codes defining our importance in the world were doomed as well.
And so science attempted murder on dogmatic authority. It wouldn't exactly die, though, like a tumor on the modern world. Why? Some necessary systems, backed by reason and compromise, remained as authority over the technical aspects of life, such as economy, civil order... but in other places, there remained gaping holes. What can science and reason tell a person in love? Or a person in pain, mourning the inevitable changes in life? Sure, we can pinpoint causes, chemicals, and adjust accordingly, but neglect to provide a guide for dilemmas we face. Looking at our divorce rates, the number of people in therapy or undergoing psychiatric treatment, or those who consider it without signing on, I think the loss has begun to show. I suspect this is why my discussion of understanding uncertain values provoked such long responses.
Soon, I'll be finishing up my series about the historical changes in Colorado, including a photo essay and geologic tour from my recent trip through the San Juan Mountains. While I've used the topic to show some of the relationships between values, and adjusting to time, there aren't any answers capable of covering that hole in our culture.... only that everything must adapt to persist. So, I'll be looking beyond... into the way symbolism and metaphor work into our lives today, how mythology and fiction can still, after all these years, provide insight into life and death, and deal with the ways we face them. Perhaps then, we can begin to see hope.
I'll have to discuss my thoughts on God, sooner or later, as well. One commenter asked if I was arguing for an objective sense of morality, and if it were the same thing as "standard God." I'm tempted to give a non-answer... yes-no-maybe... but I'll have to explain in detail when I discuss my views on mythology and spirituality. Admittedly, I've been nervous about writing on the subject, since my move to ScienceBlogs, but I know I'm not the only one attempting to reconcile these issues. Perhaps they fit better than I knew.
I have plenty more to discuss here, and more to add to the comments on the "Apple" post, but I'm still pulling my thoughts together. Also, it is the first day of fall semester. I have a microbiology class to attend tonight. (Yey! I miss having lectures/labs, call me a freak.) Plus, my son has his orientation for kindergarten in a few hours-an exciting time for us all. As if philosophizing, blog plans, vacation recovery, family and education aren't taking enough of my time, I'm feeling rather inspired to start a new story. Whew. 'Till next time...
- Log in to post comments
Hi,
This, and also "Schrodinger's Apple", is an interesting post.
Science has indeed knocked the legs out from under the chair of many previous foundations of moral systems. It's possible to refute, for example, biologically founded racism. The problem is that it can be easily converted into some other kind of intolerance, cultural racism.
Here in Belgium, we have a political party named "Vlaams Blok". (If you watch "The West Wing", you may have heard of it. In one episode, the president expresses genuine concern about this party as a rising far right force in Europe, along with parties in the Netherlands and in Austria). This party gets its votes (alarmingly, in Flanders around 25%) by promoting fear of mostly African and Middle Eastern people. After a conviction for racism (which is possible here, freedom of speech does not include promoting hatred and fear of other ethnical groups, nor to homosexuals, women,... I don't know exactly how the situation is in the US, but an organisation like the KKK would be illegal here, even if it didn't actually lynch people. Racist rhetorics would be enough to outlaw them.) they changed their focus to a kid of cultural racism: they don't make balatantly racist remarks anymore, instead they point to the dangers that islamic culture holds for our own culture.
So, even though biological racism can be refuted, they just take another criterion to be racist about.
I've never been bothered by man not being the centre of the universe, but I do know people who are. As I wrote in a previous comment, most people still want to separate man from beast, and I think this is an expression of fear.
Many of the old dogmas are still going strong in people's minds, even if objectively refuted by science. The fear of having to give up something so central to their way of viewing the world makes them not even consider rational arguments. It also makes them look strangely at me, when I declare without hesitation that man is a smart ape, in the same way a cheetah is a fast cat. It's our adaptation to the niche we live in.
You have a very good point that science cannot say much about the subjective feelings of love, grief, friendship, hate,...and that mythology, fiction, poetry (not to mention music and painting and...)can give us a deeper insight in precisely those things.
But these are as subjective and culturally related as the feelings they talk about themselves. (For example: the whole medieval courtly-love thing.)
Maybe the symbols and metaphores in mythology, as well as those in , for example, horror or fantasy stories can also lead, through comparative studie, to a kind of archetypes of human imagination accross cultures. I'm interested in what your take on this is.
In any way, when dealing with those subjective experiences, art, in any form, can help us deal with them much better than science. (If I'm feeling down, a Tom Waits record will do me more good than reading any neurological or psyhological book.)
And I am also very interested to read what your position is on the whole "God"-thing. Personally, I've been an atheist from the moment I could think for myself (going through a short fase of agnosticism first, before deciding that agnosticism, allthough logically correct, is a bit halfassed.) This doesn't prevent me from feeling deeply connected with this world I live in though. (When I explain this to the people I mentioned above, I get another one of those strange looks...)
Something a professor said to me about morality has struck me, and I've been thinking about it frequently since then. His point was that if you argue about the foundations of moral systems, you get into an irresolvable debate quickly, but that in general, people tend to agree on many higher-level points that follow from those foundations. So if we leave God, Moral Law, Natural Law,...out of the discussion, it will probably be a more constructive discussion. (This is quite simplified, but I think you can understand the point.)
Again, glad to know you're feeling better, and I hope Roland's doing well in kindergarten.
Kim
Kim, I'll be touching on many of your questions over the next few months. For now, I'll give you an ambiguous response to one: I'm not an atheist.
I can really pinpoint which is the biggest crowdsourcing website (in terms of brand recognition). There are always seem to be a new one popping up which I've never heard. This time it's Crowdflower. The learning continues...