14 ms·
Thinking of rituals and rationalism as polar opposites is the projection that shouldn't be applied. Ancient rituals should be seen as an early encoding of knowl
by usrusr 6y ago
Thinking of rituals and rationalism as polar opposites is the projection that shouldn't be applied. Ancient rituals should be seen as an early encoding of knowledge, not as an antithesis to rationalism. Some of that knowledge, or perhaps much of it, must have been utterly wrong if it only evolved through random mutations, deliberate nonconformism and natural selection. But it's easy to see how a group with the ritual of "eat your dead" would soon be displaced by a group with the ritual of "cook your dead before eating" who would still be outperformed in the long run by a group with "hide your dead somewhere where they can't give you nasty infections".
If you have never heard of a distinction between the natural and the supernatural then every learned act is a ritual and every ritual is a productive act.
Sure there's a tendency to dismiss every artifact that doesn't have an obvious purpose as ritualistic in the most hand-wavy way imaginable, but it's not wrong, it's just a bit too easy perhaps.
- marcus_holmes 6y agoThis is the thing. I don't understand where that interpretation of ancient culture comes from (except Victorian attitudes, of course). These are biologically modern humans we're talking about. They're as smart as us, as curious as us. They have a working knowledge of crafts that would put modern artisans to shame. They make beautiful, intricate, functional items. For instance, they understand the movement of the stars well enough to make a functional calendar. Why do we assume that they're irrational and ritualistic? What evidence do we have for that? What evidence do we have that they can't make a distinction between the natural and the supernatural? And yes, I think interpreting everything we don't understand the purpose of as "ritualistic" is not only wrong, it's actually harming our understanding of these people.