4 ms·
I like this discussion from a "modern" perspective. I think there are three not-modern things and in my opinion it's quite clear how to handle them. 1) There's
by erikb 9y ago
I like this discussion from a "modern" perspective. I think there are three not-modern things and in my opinion it's quite clear how to handle them.
1) There's the thing that survived modern trends and still exists. That is a useful thing, a kind of truth that has been found and embodied in this thing. People should learn about it, no matter if it's 10 months old or 1000 years. Language is such a thing, forks are such a thing, Vim is such a thing. If you don't use this thing you are bound to rediscover it under a different name. E.g. Unix attempted to be the platform neutral programming environment, then some people forgot about it. So they developed Java as platform independent programming environment. Now if you look at both, you find a lot of great things, but they are similar. And you also find that both have not fully succeeded in their goal of being platform independent.
2) There are emotional attached things. They are objectively viewed not really valuable anymore, but people get sentimental about them. This is an individual experience and therefore must also be an individual decision to use or not use. E.g. old tv shows with mediocre ratings. You might like it or not like, but another person can feel different because they have/haven't seen it in their childhood. The correct approach is to let each do their own thing in this area.
3) There are old things that haven't survived the connection to modern things. Strict hierarchical organisations for instance. A more flexible, democratic organisation usually ends up beating a strict competitor. That's why we now have republics, federations etc instead of kingdoms. You should stay away from them and not support anybody who attempts that. People try to sell this as sentimental with words like "in the past everything was better". Screw it. We don't live in the past, we live now. And if it would really be that good this thing would still be there.
Sadly we have a lot of discussions in society if obvious category 3 things might actually be category 1 for some abstract reasons. It's unnecessary to discuss. Communism is dead. Faschism is dead. Islamic Traditionalism is dead. Get off these horses.
Instead we should discuss category 1 things that are interesting from a modern perspective. For instance in school we learn that slavery is dead, but if you learn and learn and learn about the global economy you find there is still an awful lot of slavery out there. Women get cought and sold, or forcefully married. Children are used for 16h/day jobs without any pay. Prostitution itself only has a very small minority of really free participants. How the fuck can something like slavery survive? What is actually good about it? This kind of thing would be an interesting discussion in my eyes, because there is some value there to be learned about our morals and reality. Talking about if dead horses are really dead is a waste of time tho.
- humanrebar 9y agoI think "modern" perspectives are also being attacked from a progressive perspective. Freedom of speech, for instance, is losing its appeal as different groups see speech itself as despicable and on par with physical misbehavior. I guess you could group that into your #2, but in a future-looking perspective, towards some sort of utopia where everyone has pleasant thoughts and words.