5 ms·

> if they were fully human beings, they ought not to be adjusted The myth/ideal of being "fully human" is an example of essentialism, and is one the techniques

by danans 6y ago

> if they were fully human beings, they ought not to be adjusted The myth/ideal of being "fully human" is an example of essentialism, and is one the techniques that authors like Huxley and many from his era employed. It preys upon the inner authoritarian desire to normalize the world for oneself above all else, even though ironically Huxley opposed authoritarianism himself. A different take is that people's mental health as individuals is in a constant tug of war with their own circumstances, which are then in their own tug of war with the collective stresses of society. There is no normal/abnormal spectrum as Huxley would have us think. Just a complicated web of complicated agents, sometimes in harmony with their society and other times not. When the net entropy to the agent is relatively low, that's "normal". It's not a value judgement or a mark of inauthenticity the way Huxley might have you think.

Johnjonjoan 6y ago
I disagree. Human beings as you say are products of their circumstances and one circumstance that seems very pervasive is technology. We are no longer fully human beings. Technology had changed what it is to be human even in Huxley's time; nowadays I wonder has AI already taken over? The prevalence of computer run algorithms in human beings decision making seems to imply it has started at least.
- artificial 6y ago
  AI gets bandied about these days. Would stoplights fall under AI?
  - Johnjonjoan 6y ago
    Sure. I wouldn't say the decisions they influence affect our humanity a great deal though.
- cj 6y ago
  Technology has definitely changed what it is to be human. But I don’t think that means what we are today is less human than before. Technology is a very powerful tool we created. But so was the “invention” of the wheel.
  - Johnjonjoan 6y ago
    I think the more that technology influences our decisions the less human we become in our actions. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing but that we are definitely diluting our humanism with other stuff.
  - controversy 6y ago
    “To be human” is a soft phrase. What does that mean? It appears to assume an standard. The purpose of that appears to be to pull a no true Scotsman.
    - jschwartzi 6y ago
      Just because something is soft it's not necessarily invalid. I would argue the phrase means that you experience certain emotional reactions when around other people. You are capable of putting yourself in the shoes of another person and relating to them. And you respond in kind with the emotional reactions of your friends and family members. And additionally I would add the requirement that you also consider how those other people would react to what you are about to do. I know those aren't scientifically definable notions, but if I've learned anything in the past 10 years its that science isn't the only way to say interesting things about the human experience. It's just what most educated people reach for.
- danans 6y ago
  > We are no longer fully human beings This gets thrown about quite a bit without defining what "fully human" means. Given that it is a superlative, does it mean "free from the pressures of modern technological society"? Then it must also mean giving up the benefits of modern technological society, right? There are few true primitivists out there, and for many today it is a sort of technology enabled lifestyle business. I know because I'm an avid watcher of many of their YouTube channels. > Technology had changed what it is to be human even in Huxley's time; nowadays I wonder has AI already taken over? Technology has always done this. That's not to say all technology is a net benefit. We should absolutely as a society scrutinize and regulate the use of some tech, but to cast it all as dehumanizing in the essentialist manner using the ever poorly defined "full human" as a foil seems highly reductive.
  - Johnjonjoan 6y ago
    I didn't mean to imply that all technology is "dehumanising" but I'd argue that most if not all that influences you has done something to your humanity/technology balance. Fully human being is very hard to explain. According to my knowledge of Huxley is that it's someone who has essentially reached an ego state that has certain values(life, beauty, suffering). All is each which is all. I think if you haven't really dug into Huxley this could be confusing but fully human being is a specific thing.
    - danans 6y ago
      > Fully human being is very hard to explain. According to my knowledge of Huxley is that it's someone who has essentially reached an ego state that has certain values(life, beauty, suffering). All is each which is all. Defining fully human as being in the nihilistic ego-destroyed state where differentiation between the Self and all existence is nullified is another fictional ideal. Huxley himself borrowed from eastern philosophy of Vedanta, of which Huxley was a student. It's a deeply interesting path of thought to go down as an individual, but it shouldn't be mistaken as a prescription for how to be fully human in society a practical way, or a principle around which to configure society.
      - 6y ago
- roywiggins 6y ago
  There's a good argument that technology, specifically control of fire, probably made us human in the first place by allowing us access to cooked food, which we became physically dependent on. Our biology was probably significantly influenced by early technology.
  - Johnjonjoan 6y ago
    Of course technology made us who we are today.
    - starfallg 6y ago
      For better or worse, and there is no guarantee either way for the further, also.
stanfordkid 6y ago
I think his ideas and cultural critiques are a little more complicated than that — his book Island in particular is worth reading — it is the ideal mirror to the dystopia he describes in brave new world. Essentialism is a moral critique. If you stick a tiger in a small cage it doesn’t breed — that is an objective observation rather than a moral critique. Huxleys argument is of the same nature — that society is becoming a cage to natural impulse and instinct.
- danans 6y ago
  > If you stick a tiger in a small cage it doesn’t breed — that is an objective observation rather than a moral critique. Huxleys argument is of the same nature — that society is becoming a cage to natural impulse and instinct. That's a false analogy because it uses things that aren't related to each other in the same way. The society=>cage analogy isn't an objective observation, it is your opinion, and also an essentialism. Furthermore, the objective functional effect of a cage on tiger breeding has no demonstrable comparison to human existence in society, except in your attempt to essentialize it that way.
  - jmole 6y ago
    the analogy is "an environmental condition that significantly modifies 'natural' behavior". The only essentialist argument is that there was a 'natural' to begin with, which in this case ought to be obvious. Our 'natural' environment, i.e. the environment in which we evolved to prosper, is far different in which the environment that we live today. If you fail to see the analogy, you are either being overly reductive or you have very little imagination.
    - kazagistar 6y ago
      The larger brain is an evolutionary adaptation for the purpose of dealing with unique new environments. Doing so is specifically what is natural for humans, and why they so thoroughly spread across the world. Of course, evolution is basically alway does a half-assed job of everything. I think on average, we are better adjusted to this society then one thousands of years ago. Its hard to be adjusted to not having stable food or medical care or wwhatnot. But for some people, and in some ways, its worse. Thats a tradeoff and, since we have this awesome ability to change the environment, one we can work to understand and fix... not by working towards some ancient ideal, but creative forward thinking. The best environment hasn't existed yet.
coldtea 6y ago
>one the techniques that authors like Huxley and many from his era employed No, it's one of the beliefs they held. The weasel phrasing "technique (...) that they employed" means they didn't believe in those, but used them cunningly to dupe people. Second, merely saying "is an example of essentialism" doesn't solve anything, as if the case for essentialism or not is a solved one and we should now dump it. It's just a different school of thought. And can be far more nuanced than its given credit for, it's not just some caricature. >There is no normal/abnormal spectrum as Huxley would have us think. Just a complicated web of complicated agents, sometimes in harmony with their society and other times not. When the net entropy to the agent is relatively low, that's "normal". Well, normal could just as well be people adjusted (e.g. by the passage of time, cultural norm, brainwashing, etc) to horrendous conditions. There would have been many "normal" people by your definition in USSR, for example. Slavery was also normal once -- and not just free citizens consider it as such, and based on accounts many later generation slaves internalised this as "just the way things are" (the "Uncle Tomas" variety). Without a degree of essentialism, that is, an idea of what is normal and what a person/society should strive for, you can accept anything.
- danans 6y ago
  > Without a degree of essentialism, that is, an idea of what is normal and what a person/society should strive for, you can accept anything. Essentialism is a tool, at most a particular lens that should be viewed through, but what is seen should not taken as a truth, but only a highly filtered and downsampled representation of it. Essentialism is also what kept slavery justified (under the theory that Africans were "essentially" fit for forced labor), before a different essentialism took over.
  - coldtea 6y ago
    >Essentialism is also what kept slavery justified (under the theory that Africans were "essentially" fit for forced labor), before a different essentialism took over. Yes. It can't be written off as "essentially" (pun intended) bad. It depends on the use - and as everything in social life, it's complicated.
voldacar 6y ago
Your comments in this thread make you sound really angry and kind of spiteful about Huxley and his "essentialism." This seems kind of weird and unhealthy to me - did some "essentialist" person hurt you in some way or something?

by danans 6y ago

Johnjonjoan 6y ago

I disagree. Human beings as you say are products of their circumstances and one circumstance that seems very pervasive is technology. We are no longer fully human beings. Technology had changed what it is to be human even in Huxley's time; nowadays I wonder has AI already taken over? The prevalence of computer run algorithms in human beings decision making seems to imply it has started at least.

artificial 6y ago
AI gets bandied about these days. Would stoplights fall under AI?
- Johnjonjoan 6y ago
  Sure. I wouldn't say the decisions they influence affect our humanity a great deal though.
cj 6y ago
Technology has definitely changed what it is to be human. But I don’t think that means what we are today is less human than before. Technology is a very powerful tool we created. But so was the “invention” of the wheel.
- Johnjonjoan 6y ago
  I think the more that technology influences our decisions the less human we become in our actions. I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing but that we are definitely diluting our humanism with other stuff.
- controversy 6y ago
  “To be human” is a soft phrase. What does that mean? It appears to assume an standard. The purpose of that appears to be to pull a no true Scotsman.
  - jschwartzi 6y ago
    Just because something is soft it's not necessarily invalid. I would argue the phrase means that you experience certain emotional reactions when around other people. You are capable of putting yourself in the shoes of another person and relating to them. And you respond in kind with the emotional reactions of your friends and family members. And additionally I would add the requirement that you also consider how those other people would react to what you are about to do. I know those aren't scientifically definable notions, but if I've learned anything in the past 10 years its that science isn't the only way to say interesting things about the human experience. It's just what most educated people reach for.
danans 6y ago
> We are no longer fully human beings This gets thrown about quite a bit without defining what "fully human" means. Given that it is a superlative, does it mean "free from the pressures of modern technological society"? Then it must also mean giving up the benefits of modern technological society, right? There are few true primitivists out there, and for many today it is a sort of technology enabled lifestyle business. I know because I'm an avid watcher of many of their YouTube channels. > Technology had changed what it is to be human even in Huxley's time; nowadays I wonder has AI already taken over? Technology has always done this. That's not to say all technology is a net benefit. We should absolutely as a society scrutinize and regulate the use of some tech, but to cast it all as dehumanizing in the essentialist manner using the ever poorly defined "full human" as a foil seems highly reductive.
- Johnjonjoan 6y ago
  I didn't mean to imply that all technology is "dehumanising" but I'd argue that most if not all that influences you has done something to your humanity/technology balance. Fully human being is very hard to explain. According to my knowledge of Huxley is that it's someone who has essentially reached an ego state that has certain values(life, beauty, suffering). All is each which is all. I think if you haven't really dug into Huxley this could be confusing but fully human being is a specific thing.
  - danans 6y ago
    > Fully human being is very hard to explain. According to my knowledge of Huxley is that it's someone who has essentially reached an ego state that has certain values(life, beauty, suffering). All is each which is all. Defining fully human as being in the nihilistic ego-destroyed state where differentiation between the Self and all existence is nullified is another fictional ideal. Huxley himself borrowed from eastern philosophy of Vedanta, of which Huxley was a student. It's a deeply interesting path of thought to go down as an individual, but it shouldn't be mistaken as a prescription for how to be fully human in society a practical way, or a principle around which to configure society.
    - 6y ago
roywiggins 6y ago
There's a good argument that technology, specifically control of fire, probably made us human in the first place by allowing us access to cooked food, which we became physically dependent on. Our biology was probably significantly influenced by early technology.
- Johnjonjoan 6y ago
  Of course technology made us who we are today.
  - starfallg 6y ago
    For better or worse, and there is no guarantee either way for the further, also.

stanfordkid 6y ago

I think his ideas and cultural critiques are a little more complicated than that — his book Island in particular is worth reading — it is the ideal mirror to the dystopia he describes in brave new world. Essentialism is a moral critique. If you stick a tiger in a small cage it doesn’t breed — that is an objective observation rather than a moral critique. Huxleys argument is of the same nature — that society is becoming a cage to natural impulse and instinct.

danans 6y ago
> If you stick a tiger in a small cage it doesn’t breed — that is an objective observation rather than a moral critique. Huxleys argument is of the same nature — that society is becoming a cage to natural impulse and instinct. That's a false analogy because it uses things that aren't related to each other in the same way. The society=>cage analogy isn't an objective observation, it is your opinion, and also an essentialism. Furthermore, the objective functional effect of a cage on tiger breeding has no demonstrable comparison to human existence in society, except in your attempt to essentialize it that way.
- jmole 6y ago
  the analogy is "an environmental condition that significantly modifies 'natural' behavior". The only essentialist argument is that there was a 'natural' to begin with, which in this case ought to be obvious. Our 'natural' environment, i.e. the environment in which we evolved to prosper, is far different in which the environment that we live today. If you fail to see the analogy, you are either being overly reductive or you have very little imagination.
  - kazagistar 6y ago
    The larger brain is an evolutionary adaptation for the purpose of dealing with unique new environments. Doing so is specifically what is natural for humans, and why they so thoroughly spread across the world. Of course, evolution is basically alway does a half-assed job of everything. I think on average, we are better adjusted to this society then one thousands of years ago. Its hard to be adjusted to not having stable food or medical care or wwhatnot. But for some people, and in some ways, its worse. Thats a tradeoff and, since we have this awesome ability to change the environment, one we can work to understand and fix... not by working towards some ancient ideal, but creative forward thinking. The best environment hasn't existed yet.

coldtea 6y ago

>one the techniques that authors like Huxley and many from his era employed No, it's one of the beliefs they held. The weasel phrasing "technique (...) that they employed" means they didn't believe in those, but used them cunningly to dupe people. Second, merely saying "is an example of essentialism" doesn't solve anything, as if the case for essentialism or not is a solved one and we should now dump it. It's just a different school of thought. And can be far more nuanced than its given credit for, it's not just some caricature. >There is no normal/abnormal spectrum as Huxley would have us think. Just a complicated web of complicated agents, sometimes in harmony with their society and other times not. When the net entropy to the agent is relatively low, that's "normal". Well, normal could just as well be people adjusted (e.g. by the passage of time, cultural norm, brainwashing, etc) to horrendous conditions. There would have been many "normal" people by your definition in USSR, for example. Slavery was also normal once -- and not just free citizens consider it as such, and based on accounts many later generation slaves internalised this as "just the way things are" (the "Uncle Tomas" variety). Without a degree of essentialism, that is, an idea of what is normal and what a person/society should strive for, you can accept anything.

danans 6y ago
> Without a degree of essentialism, that is, an idea of what is normal and what a person/society should strive for, you can accept anything. Essentialism is a tool, at most a particular lens that should be viewed through, but what is seen should not taken as a truth, but only a highly filtered and downsampled representation of it. Essentialism is also what kept slavery justified (under the theory that Africans were "essentially" fit for forced labor), before a different essentialism took over.
- coldtea 6y ago
  >Essentialism is also what kept slavery justified (under the theory that Africans were "essentially" fit for forced labor), before a different essentialism took over. Yes. It can't be written off as "essentially" (pun intended) bad. It depends on the use - and as everything in social life, it's complicated.

voldacar 6y ago

Your comments in this thread make you sound really angry and kind of spiteful about Huxley and his "essentialism." This seems kind of weird and unhealthy to me - did some "essentialist" person hurt you in some way or something?