Wheldrake
Posts: 477
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote:
ORIGINAL: Wheldrake Sure, we're more free and rational, although the bar was set pretty low back in the Stone Age. People would have believed all kinds of crazy things and been subject to the will of tribal leaders, and technological limitations would have constrained the options available to the average person in any case. If you can take a jet from Nairobi to Naples, or Newcastle, you have more freedom (in one important sense) than someone who can only walk across several miles of savannah in the same amount of time. And I would say that freedom and rationality have probably increased, at least in the West, even in the past 50 years. But freedom and rationality aren't everything. I wouldn't necessarily agree that increased choice and opportunities is akin to increased freedom, although 'freedom' is subjective, granted. Well, that's why I qualified my statement by making it clear that I was talking about freedom "in one important sense". If you have more options, you have more of one particular kind of freedom. quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent And people continue to act in ways that are viewed as 'crazy' by many people - such as dropping atom bombs. Only two atom bombs have ever been dropped for purposes other than testing, and I wouldn't say that the use of those bombs was a "crazy" decision (though I'll grant that it was pretty fucking ruthless). However, I was talking more about crazy beliefs, rather than actions, and "crazy" was a slightly flippant word. What I meant was that our remote ancestors had no concept of scientific thinking. Their interpretations of the natural world around them were almost certainly ludicrous by modern standards - they may well have thought that storms reflected the anger of gods or spirits, for example. quote:
ORIGINAL: NorthernGent quote:
ORIGINAL: Wheldrake That's kind of my point - that sooner or later you hit the damn cul-de-sac, because there's a limit to what's knowable in principle. Philosophy may already have discovered all of the major logical possibilities in both ethics and metaphysics, in which case there's not much left for philosophers to do apart from filling in some details. I'd imagine that philosophers will tell you they really don't know, when being honest. I'm not saying that philosophers know everything, but I am saying that they're probably getting close to the limit of what they can discover. Someone (Bertrand Russell? I'm not sure) wrote that all of Western philosophy was just footnotes to Plato. Even if that's an exaggeration, I think we're probably getting close to the point where philosophers have laid out all the logically consistent options when it comes to such traditional questions as, say, the existence or non-existence of objective morality. Clarifying or narrowing down the options any further, except in matters of detail, may be almost impossible. But perhaps the next few decades of philosophy will prove me wrong.
|