3 ms·

Metaphysical subjects like this are mostly a matter of taste, but I can't resist pointing out there are bias and errors in this. > the defining feature of mode

Metaphysical subjects like this are mostly a matter of taste, but I can't resist pointing out there are bias and errors in this. > the defining feature of modernity is that people no longer believe in spirits, myths or magic. Religion is excluded from all this "enchantment" talk. I don't know if it is because of the personal belief of the author, or because it would hurt most of the American readers. E.g. Christians generally believe in miracles and saints, or at least they believe that some kind of omnipotent spirit watches over them. Isn't that the most common form of magic? > Chasing the domination of nature, humans began to dominate each other. [...] led toward the objectification of humanity; the concentration camps and Gulag followed. This is absurd. When Tamerlan destroyed cities and killed hundreds of thousands of people, there was no desire of dominating Nature, nor "enchantment". Three thousand years ago, Assurbanipal organized large scale transfers of populations, and he claimed he tortured civilians routinely. Many "enlightened" religious wars led to huge atrocities, where the opposite side was treated worse than cattle. And of course, slavery and "sub-human races" are an old invention totally unrelated to the domination of Nature. Modern tools led to powerful acts, but "objectification of humanity" is nothing new. [edit: typos]

rjf72 7y ago
The article hit on this exact point with a rather interesting quote: "I should note that disenchantment should not be confused with secularisation. The sociological evidence suggests that de-Christianisation, while usually equated with secularisation, often correlates with an increase in belief in spirits, ghosts and magic – not the reverse.". The article is more about animism than magic. Personally I find the confident, sometimes bordering on militant, rejection of animism by some to be no less peculiar than the no less confident adoption of others in religions undoubtedly invented by men. Why? We know that our brains seem to drive most of our decisions through various complex interactions with the rest of our body. And when these actors are manipulated, our behaviors thus change. This seems like a clear enough argument for determinism that would clearly run contrary to animism, but there's one little problem. "Me." I am standing here believing that I am the one choosing my words, formatting my text, conveying my thoughts. Why would I be observing this, imagining myself to be the one engaging in such actions? If you write a program to generate a pseudo-random number I think everybody would agree it's quite absurd to imagine some being briefly flickers into existence, imagines himself picking a number, and then flickers back out of existence. Yet how does this notion become any less absurd as the program becomes more complex? You have to engage in extensive hand-waving and appeals to unknown and untestable facts to argue against animism in this case. Quite ironic then that it is this same behavior that people use as a critique of animism. Don't take this as an endorsement or condemnation of either side. If anything it's an an appeal against radicalism on either side: believe what you want, try to persuade interested others if it gives you satisfaction, don't escalate beyond that.
claudiawerner 7y ago
> When Tamerlan destroyed cities and killed hundreds of thousands of people, there was no desire of dominating Nature, nor "enchantment". Perhaps this is the religious enchantment you point out being missing from the author. I don't know how you can claim that Tamerlane wasn't "enchanted" in exactly the same sense. Next, the author never claims that this drive is purely modern, in fact, he points out that Francis Bacon is only the patriarch of the modern incarnation of this "ancient human impulse". Adorno and Horkheimer weren't sloppy nor were they stupid enough to forget that mass killings happened before the historical stage of Enlightenment. >And of course, slavery and "sub-human races" are an old invention totally unrelated to the domination of Nature. This is taken into account with the idea that ideology tends to subsume such impulses to its own ends. The "objectification of humanity" takes on a particular social form, the author claims, in its reduction to a matter of scientific numerical quantity and as Marcuse elaborated, the use of technology in advanced industrial society leading to technological rationality.
crawfordcomeaux 7y ago
I think it's important to note that slavery is domination of Nature if you consider humans as members of Nature.

rjf72 7y ago

The article hit on this exact point with a rather interesting quote: "I should note that disenchantment should not be confused with secularisation. The sociological evidence suggests that de-Christianisation, while usually equated with secularisation, often correlates with an increase in belief in spirits, ghosts and magic – not the reverse.". The article is more about animism than magic. Personally I find the confident, sometimes bordering on militant, rejection of animism by some to be no less peculiar than the no less confident adoption of others in religions undoubtedly invented by men. Why? We know that our brains seem to drive most of our decisions through various complex interactions with the rest of our body. And when these actors are manipulated, our behaviors thus change. This seems like a clear enough argument for determinism that would clearly run contrary to animism, but there's one little problem. "Me." I am standing here believing that I am the one choosing my words, formatting my text, conveying my thoughts. Why would I be observing this, imagining myself to be the one engaging in such actions? If you write a program to generate a pseudo-random number I think everybody would agree it's quite absurd to imagine some being briefly flickers into existence, imagines himself picking a number, and then flickers back out of existence. Yet how does this notion become any less absurd as the program becomes more complex? You have to engage in extensive hand-waving and appeals to unknown and untestable facts to argue against animism in this case. Quite ironic then that it is this same behavior that people use as a critique of animism. Don't take this as an endorsement or condemnation of either side. If anything it's an an appeal against radicalism on either side: believe what you want, try to persuade interested others if it gives you satisfaction, don't escalate beyond that.

claudiawerner 7y ago

> When Tamerlan destroyed cities and killed hundreds of thousands of people, there was no desire of dominating Nature, nor "enchantment". Perhaps this is the religious enchantment you point out being missing from the author. I don't know how you can claim that Tamerlane wasn't "enchanted" in exactly the same sense. Next, the author never claims that this drive is purely modern, in fact, he points out that Francis Bacon is only the patriarch of the modern incarnation of this "ancient human impulse". Adorno and Horkheimer weren't sloppy nor were they stupid enough to forget that mass killings happened before the historical stage of Enlightenment. >And of course, slavery and "sub-human races" are an old invention totally unrelated to the domination of Nature. This is taken into account with the idea that ideology tends to subsume such impulses to its own ends. The "objectification of humanity" takes on a particular social form, the author claims, in its reduction to a matter of scientific numerical quantity and as Marcuse elaborated, the use of technology in advanced industrial society leading to technological rationality.

crawfordcomeaux 7y ago

I think it's important to note that slavery is domination of Nature if you consider humans as members of Nature.