11 ms·

The author of this piece is clearly incredibly well read and yet it seems she read all of these classical works with disdain for their authors or at least with

The author of this piece is clearly incredibly well read and yet it seems she read all of these classical works with disdain for their authors or at least with the deeply held belief that they can't truly be taken seriously. That belief is probably so deeply held that she's not even aware that she holds it. I know that in my own experience I grew up thinking that way. When you truly accept that we today are not smarter nor necessarily more 'enlightened' than the people that came before us it opens your mind to the lessons of history in a very real way. >After all, if we cling to this primitive idea that an addictive substance must be eradicated, and if we live in a world in which sex and food are considered addictive, where does that leave us as a species? Have you considered that this "primitive" idea comes up over and over again among great thinkers and writers throughout human history because there's something to it? Do you think people today live happier, more fulfilling lives because food is superabundant to the point of excess and sexual proclivities are uninhibited? Why are you so sure?

projektir 9y ago
I think this view is more problematic than the one you're critiquing... I don't think it's too unreasonable to assume more modern people (significantly more modern, even), are a bit more enlightened on some subjects. At least, we no longer consider things like slavery and sexism OK, yet ancient people did, which indicates some significant gaps in their philosophies and high influence from outside. > Have you considered that this "primitive" idea comes up over and over again among great thinkers and writers throughout human history because there's something to it? Well, there is something to it... it's often reflecting the natural order of things, or the Zeitgeist of that time. Generally, a great thinker does not transcend time and is somewhat locked into their time, in that only certain strains of thought seem to exist during a time period and others do not, which indicates that overall variety of thinking is just not very high, regardless of how much of a "great thinker" you are. This, of course, it true for our time as well. Very likely many things we believe today are heavily influenced by whatever is, in a sense, "fashionable". Some ideas are best left unstated. The age, or lack of thereof, won't really tell you how accurate or useful something is, you'll have to evaluate it on its own terms. I don't like terms like "primitive" because they don't mean anything on their own, but that's a different question.
- leggomylibro 9y ago
  On the other hand, we also live in a crazy extreme environment today compared to olde times. We have better sanitation and life expectancy, but also way more exposure to things like lead, diesel fumes, radiation, environmental pollutants magnified through the foodchain... I mean, how many Greek cities had nuclear landfill fires smoldering underneath them? Fewer than modern America. And how much mercury and DDT was in the fish they ate? How many pharmaceuticals in their runoff water?
  - vacri 9y ago
    > I mean, how many Greek cities had nuclear landfill fires smoldering underneath them? Fewer than modern America. How many modern American cities have smouldering nuclear landfill fires under them?
    - leggomylibro 9y ago
      Only one that I know of, but that's still probably more than ancient Greece. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-do-you-put-out-a-subterranean-fire-in-a-mountain-of-trash/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-do-you-put-out-a-su... It's an interesting bit of trivia that St. Louis had one of the nation's first cyclotrons used for atomic research, but radiation is the gift that keeps on giving. We're more or less stuck with it now, though; too bad we aren't using more for energy. Why, my pops has stories of scrubbin' the hot room floor what'd raise your hairs...of course, that was back on the East coast. Grandpop always was fond of hands-on lessons. Well. Hands-on lessons, ignoring the IRS, and losing his company's license to produce radioactive material. Still, he considered it a win when he was still cogent because 'those boys at oak ridge saved him from the draft.' Can't argue with that. Or at least, I sure as hell can't, especially since my other grandpop served in the Pacific theater and was very quiet about the whole thing besides using certain, uh, racial epithets to his death. Let's all stop and appreciate the lack of serious global conflict around now, yeah?
- hnthrwawy566 9y ago
  > At least, we no longer consider things like slavery and sexism OK No one has ever thought sexism is OK just like no one has ever thought murder is OK. The term contains within it the implicit value judgement. So long as there is sexual dimorphism among humans there will be a fundamental nature to the relations between the sexes and gender roles. If you would like to keep your mind closed and not think about the possibility that what we have now is not necessarily in keeping with that nature, that is your prerogative.
adrianratnapala 9y ago
... When you truly accept that we today are not smarter nor necessarily more 'enlightened' than the people that came ... The trouble is that we are more enlightened.
- dasil003 9y ago
  Scientific knowledge != enlightenment.
  - sverige 9y ago
    I would argue that ancient peoples were much more intelligent on average than people today. It is obvious to me that even in the past few generations, each subsequent generation has been less intelligent, more narrow minded, and overall less robust than previous generations. I personally knew many people who were born in the 19th century and I could not say that my generation is in any way superior to theirs. We may know more stuff, but we are far less wise. Reading ancient authors only reinforces how simple and unenlightened we are compared to them. It is a very unpopular view, of course, because it is threatening to the self-esteem of my contemporaries who believe that all of the social changes and scientific advances in the past century or so have put us on the cusp of some permanent state of enlightenment. I am sure that we are rather on the cusp of great disaster. No one really likes to think that, but the evidence is pretty obvious in my opinion.
    - Retra 9y ago
      An argument made on such vague terms is easy to make. You never qualified how you measure intelligence, nor which people you're talking about (those who in the past who were wealthy and well-written enough to leave records vs the 'common clay' of today,) nor have you said which cultures you believe to be on the cusp of collapse, nor any prediction of the cause of such obviously imminent disaster. And of course, no proof that it would be a disaster, rather than a mere rebirth. So I would argue that the provider of such an unenlightened exposition is not in a position to be giving such analysis in a meaningful way.
    - 9y ago
marcoperaza 9y ago
Another trope that bothers me, along similar lines, also appears in this article: that people have always had anxieties about the changing ways and attitudes of the youth, and so we should dismiss such fears. In fact, ancient civilizations did fall, sometimes because their people lost the will and confidence needed to maintain the institutions that they inherited. Because they became decadent in their abundance and abandoned the virtues that created their fortunes in the first place.
vacri 9y ago
> When you truly accept that we today are not smarter nor necessarily more 'enlightened' than the people that came before us We're not necessarily smarter (native intellect) but we are a shitload more enlightened (educated, experienced). In Plato's time, only the absolute social elite could converse in this manner, whereas now we have much broader and deeper knowledge available (and discussed) on pretty much every aspect of life that is common between our times. Don't fall into the trap of deifying past thinkers; they were humans too. Yes, we can learn lessons from them, but our populace as a whole is more enlightened than the populace as a whole in Plato's time. One simple example is egalitarianism; while not perfect now, Greek democracies were only democratic for elite men. Sucks to be you if you're a slave or a woman because... um... that's just the way it is? If you're going to be making theory, you should work from solid foundations - the ancient Greeks had some really wrong ideas about the role of the physical heart and brain of a human, and no-one today would talk about the left ventricle being the source of human heat, for example.
- hnthrwawy566 9y ago
  > they were humans too Yes they were. However I'll put more stock in the ideas that have survived and been promulgated throughout the ages than I would, for example, some poorly thought out perspective from some random guy on HN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect > and no-one today would talk about the left ventricle being the source of human hea No one today would seriously suggest that a low-fat high-carb diet was healthy and yet that's exactly what was advocated by the medical profession up until about 5 years ago.
  - vacri 9y ago
    Well, you're succumbing to survivorship bias there, because there were plenty of poorly thought-out perspectives from yesteryear that haven't survived. Claiming that the ancients were more enlightened than us moderns because a few of their ideas survived is simply not rational. And it's certainly stacking the deck to compare the apex thinker of antiquity to a non-apex thinker today.
    - 9y ago
lmm 9y ago
> Do you think people today live happier, more fulfilling lives because food is superabundant to the point of excess and sexual proclivities are uninhibited? Yes, very much so. > Why are you so sure? Because it aligns with my experience, ultimately. And because I have explanations for why these ancient thinkers thought the way they did - the kind of sexual behaviour that made sense in a world without modern medicine is very different from what makes sense with it.
- hnthrwawy566 9y ago
  > Because it aligns with my experience, ultimately. The experience of one person over not even a full lifetime? That's just laughably dumb. I don't mean to be rude but I also don't know what to say to that.

projektir 9y ago

I think this view is more problematic than the one you're critiquing... I don't think it's too unreasonable to assume more modern people (significantly more modern, even), are a bit more enlightened on some subjects. At least, we no longer consider things like slavery and sexism OK, yet ancient people did, which indicates some significant gaps in their philosophies and high influence from outside. > Have you considered that this "primitive" idea comes up over and over again among great thinkers and writers throughout human history because there's something to it? Well, there is something to it... it's often reflecting the natural order of things, or the Zeitgeist of that time. Generally, a great thinker does not transcend time and is somewhat locked into their time, in that only certain strains of thought seem to exist during a time period and others do not, which indicates that overall variety of thinking is just not very high, regardless of how much of a "great thinker" you are. This, of course, it true for our time as well. Very likely many things we believe today are heavily influenced by whatever is, in a sense, "fashionable". Some ideas are best left unstated. The age, or lack of thereof, won't really tell you how accurate or useful something is, you'll have to evaluate it on its own terms. I don't like terms like "primitive" because they don't mean anything on their own, but that's a different question.

leggomylibro 9y ago
On the other hand, we also live in a crazy extreme environment today compared to olde times. We have better sanitation and life expectancy, but also way more exposure to things like lead, diesel fumes, radiation, environmental pollutants magnified through the foodchain... I mean, how many Greek cities had nuclear landfill fires smoldering underneath them? Fewer than modern America. And how much mercury and DDT was in the fish they ate? How many pharmaceuticals in their runoff water?
- vacri 9y ago
  > I mean, how many Greek cities had nuclear landfill fires smoldering underneath them? Fewer than modern America. How many modern American cities have smouldering nuclear landfill fires under them?
  - leggomylibro 9y ago
    Only one that I know of, but that's still probably more than ancient Greece. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-do-you-put-out-a-subterranean-fire-in-a-mountain-of-trash/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-do-you-put-out-a-su... It's an interesting bit of trivia that St. Louis had one of the nation's first cyclotrons used for atomic research, but radiation is the gift that keeps on giving. We're more or less stuck with it now, though; too bad we aren't using more for energy. Why, my pops has stories of scrubbin' the hot room floor what'd raise your hairs...of course, that was back on the East coast. Grandpop always was fond of hands-on lessons. Well. Hands-on lessons, ignoring the IRS, and losing his company's license to produce radioactive material. Still, he considered it a win when he was still cogent because 'those boys at oak ridge saved him from the draft.' Can't argue with that. Or at least, I sure as hell can't, especially since my other grandpop served in the Pacific theater and was very quiet about the whole thing besides using certain, uh, racial epithets to his death. Let's all stop and appreciate the lack of serious global conflict around now, yeah?
hnthrwawy566 9y ago
> At least, we no longer consider things like slavery and sexism OK No one has ever thought sexism is OK just like no one has ever thought murder is OK. The term contains within it the implicit value judgement. So long as there is sexual dimorphism among humans there will be a fundamental nature to the relations between the sexes and gender roles. If you would like to keep your mind closed and not think about the possibility that what we have now is not necessarily in keeping with that nature, that is your prerogative.

adrianratnapala 9y ago

... When you truly accept that we today are not smarter nor necessarily more 'enlightened' than the people that came ... The trouble is that we are more enlightened.

dasil003 9y ago
Scientific knowledge != enlightenment.
- sverige 9y ago
  I would argue that ancient peoples were much more intelligent on average than people today. It is obvious to me that even in the past few generations, each subsequent generation has been less intelligent, more narrow minded, and overall less robust than previous generations. I personally knew many people who were born in the 19th century and I could not say that my generation is in any way superior to theirs. We may know more stuff, but we are far less wise. Reading ancient authors only reinforces how simple and unenlightened we are compared to them. It is a very unpopular view, of course, because it is threatening to the self-esteem of my contemporaries who believe that all of the social changes and scientific advances in the past century or so have put us on the cusp of some permanent state of enlightenment. I am sure that we are rather on the cusp of great disaster. No one really likes to think that, but the evidence is pretty obvious in my opinion.
  - Retra 9y ago
    An argument made on such vague terms is easy to make. You never qualified how you measure intelligence, nor which people you're talking about (those who in the past who were wealthy and well-written enough to leave records vs the 'common clay' of today,) nor have you said which cultures you believe to be on the cusp of collapse, nor any prediction of the cause of such obviously imminent disaster. And of course, no proof that it would be a disaster, rather than a mere rebirth. So I would argue that the provider of such an unenlightened exposition is not in a position to be giving such analysis in a meaningful way.
  - 9y ago

marcoperaza 9y ago

Another trope that bothers me, along similar lines, also appears in this article: that people have always had anxieties about the changing ways and attitudes of the youth, and so we should dismiss such fears. In fact, ancient civilizations did fall, sometimes because their people lost the will and confidence needed to maintain the institutions that they inherited. Because they became decadent in their abundance and abandoned the virtues that created their fortunes in the first place.

vacri 9y ago

> When you truly accept that we today are not smarter nor necessarily more 'enlightened' than the people that came before us We're not necessarily smarter (native intellect) but we are a shitload more enlightened (educated, experienced). In Plato's time, only the absolute social elite could converse in this manner, whereas now we have much broader and deeper knowledge available (and discussed) on pretty much every aspect of life that is common between our times. Don't fall into the trap of deifying past thinkers; they were humans too. Yes, we can learn lessons from them, but our populace as a whole is more enlightened than the populace as a whole in Plato's time. One simple example is egalitarianism; while not perfect now, Greek democracies were only democratic for elite men. Sucks to be you if you're a slave or a woman because... um... that's just the way it is? If you're going to be making theory, you should work from solid foundations - the ancient Greeks had some really wrong ideas about the role of the physical heart and brain of a human, and no-one today would talk about the left ventricle being the source of human heat, for example.

hnthrwawy566 9y ago
> they were humans too Yes they were. However I'll put more stock in the ideas that have survived and been promulgated throughout the ages than I would, for example, some poorly thought out perspective from some random guy on HN. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect > and no-one today would talk about the left ventricle being the source of human hea No one today would seriously suggest that a low-fat high-carb diet was healthy and yet that's exactly what was advocated by the medical profession up until about 5 years ago.
- vacri 9y ago
  Well, you're succumbing to survivorship bias there, because there were plenty of poorly thought-out perspectives from yesteryear that haven't survived. Claiming that the ancients were more enlightened than us moderns because a few of their ideas survived is simply not rational. And it's certainly stacking the deck to compare the apex thinker of antiquity to a non-apex thinker today.
  - 9y ago

lmm 9y ago

> Do you think people today live happier, more fulfilling lives because food is superabundant to the point of excess and sexual proclivities are uninhibited? Yes, very much so. > Why are you so sure? Because it aligns with my experience, ultimately. And because I have explanations for why these ancient thinkers thought the way they did - the kind of sexual behaviour that made sense in a world without modern medicine is very different from what makes sense with it.

hnthrwawy566 9y ago
> Because it aligns with my experience, ultimately. The experience of one person over not even a full lifetime? That's just laughably dumb. I don't mean to be rude but I also don't know what to say to that.