4 ms·

You touch on something interesting there - a lack of a solid, consistent narrative, such as the Cold War, leaves a vacuum into which incoherent and disparate ta

You touch on something interesting there - a lack of a solid, consistent narrative, such as the Cold War, leaves a vacuum into which incoherent and disparate tales grow, as people seek a new bulk narrative to explain their world. Instead of a largely coherent narrative across societies, one ends up with numerous, usually conflicting, narratives. Maybe we just need to accept that our narrative is more James Joyce and Marcel Proust than it is Michael Crichton.

keiferski 2y ago
I actually think that it's much deeper of a problem than the lack of a geopolitical situation like the Cold War, and instead goes all the way back to Copernicus and Darwin. While these discoveries (that humans aren't the center of the universe and weren't created in a supreme being's image, but are evolved from animals) were good from a scientific truth perspective, I think they had a negative malaise effect on human psychology – if only because the previous narratives were thrown out without a sufficiently meaningful one to replace it. And so yeah, you just get a variety of localized, incoherent narratives arising in this vacuum of meaning. The answer that is really needed IMO is a way of squaring contemporary scientific knowledge with a story that still centers humanity in the universe and offers a better worldview than "you're a primate lost in space."
- psychoslave 2y ago
  You can find sarcastic discourses about whoever think anthropocentric is a sane point of view that go back as far as we have any philosophical account. Take Xenophane’s Satire for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophanes#Satires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophanes#Satires Copernicus and Darwin didn’t change much things on that side. I wholly disagree with your later point though. Knowing that we are only primate lost in space, that civilizations and even our whole species could totally disappear tomorrow without any deity to help, save, rescue, blame or give congrats is actually a far more appealing scenario in term of being challenged to excel. Compare that with "you are full first class member of that special species that the most perfect imaginable being ever created and whatever you do you’ll be granted salvation and experiment an eternal existence in paradise".
  - keiferski 2y ago
    "you are full first class member of that special species that the most perfect imaginable being ever created and whatever you do you’ll be granted salvation and experiment an eternal existence in paradise". That's really not an accurate description of the role religion has played in human psychology, and is only accurate for a very specific subset of beliefs in a specific time and place. My argument was more that humans thought of themselves as inhabiting a world designed for them, but then learned that this was (likely) not true, and that for many people this is a pessimistic, nihilistic conclusion.
    - RandomLensman 2y ago
      Not all religions/belief systems have/had the world (just) designed for humans. People can "cope" with other views.
      - keiferski 2y ago
        Definitely true, but: - I'm talking primarily about the Western world and its legacy of Christianity. The situation is different in India, China, etc. - Even then, in practice, most successful religions tend to have a human-like personal figure in an important place, even if the religion itself is technically non-personal.
        soco 2y ago
        If the point is about "humanity" and how the world cannot have non-human goals, then rejecting the inconvenient religions (oriental, animistic, whatever) is definitely not a convincing argument. Those are just as humans, and don't explain the world in the convenient western way. So yes, we can very well live in a world not designed for humans.
        keiferski 2y ago
        The point is about Western society and its progression, not “humans” in general. So yes, one route may to be create a belief system more similar to animist or other religions. But that is itself a tall order. A lot of this has to do with the Enlightenment project and disenchantment so it’s already largely focused on the Western world to begin with. Other places have less a history with this.
- 1propionyl 2y ago
  > a story that still centers humanity in the universe and offers a better worldview than "you're a primate lost in space." The fact of being a self-aware meta-cognitive primate lost in space isn't enough of a miracle to justify feeling centered in the universe?
  - keiferski 2y ago
    It might be, but I don't think culture at large finds this story very inspirational.
    - hshshshshsh 2y ago
      Culture is the problem. Remove the dead beliefs. Replace it with something alive. Live from awareness.
    - yldedly 2y ago
      Why do you think that is? Is this narrative too complicated, or too different from the sort of myths that we naturally tend to create? I wonder whether it'd be possible to make the story more inspirational by telling it in more accessible ways.
      - keiferski 2y ago
        Hard to say. It might be simply a supply problem- most movies, books etc. don’t really promote this vision of humanity’s place in the world, so it indeed might be a question of accessibility. Historically, belief systems definitely had a wide range of “content” aimed at different levels of society. But there also seems to be a real interest in “spiritual” needs, whatever that might mean in particular. And so a purely scientific approach may not be enough in the first place. Personally I think it may be too much of a past-focused narrative to be very compelling. Most successful religions have a vision of the future, not merely the past.
        yldedly 2y ago
        Do have some proposal for a narrative that could work?
- em-bee 2y ago
  The answer that is really needed IMO is a way of squaring contemporary scientific knowledge with a story that still centers humanity in the universe i agree. science and religion need to be in harmony and not contradict each other. if there is an apparent contradiction we need to open to the possibility that we are either misinterpreting the religious claim or that the scientific findings need further research or even both.

keiferski 2y ago

I actually think that it's much deeper of a problem than the lack of a geopolitical situation like the Cold War, and instead goes all the way back to Copernicus and Darwin. While these discoveries (that humans aren't the center of the universe and weren't created in a supreme being's image, but are evolved from animals) were good from a scientific truth perspective, I think they had a negative malaise effect on human psychology – if only because the previous narratives were thrown out without a sufficiently meaningful one to replace it. And so yeah, you just get a variety of localized, incoherent narratives arising in this vacuum of meaning. The answer that is really needed IMO is a way of squaring contemporary scientific knowledge with a story that still centers humanity in the universe and offers a better worldview than "you're a primate lost in space."

psychoslave 2y ago
You can find sarcastic discourses about whoever think anthropocentric is a sane point of view that go back as far as we have any philosophical account. Take Xenophane’s Satire for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophanes#Satires https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophanes#Satires Copernicus and Darwin didn’t change much things on that side. I wholly disagree with your later point though. Knowing that we are only primate lost in space, that civilizations and even our whole species could totally disappear tomorrow without any deity to help, save, rescue, blame or give congrats is actually a far more appealing scenario in term of being challenged to excel. Compare that with "you are full first class member of that special species that the most perfect imaginable being ever created and whatever you do you’ll be granted salvation and experiment an eternal existence in paradise".
- keiferski 2y ago
  "you are full first class member of that special species that the most perfect imaginable being ever created and whatever you do you’ll be granted salvation and experiment an eternal existence in paradise". That's really not an accurate description of the role religion has played in human psychology, and is only accurate for a very specific subset of beliefs in a specific time and place. My argument was more that humans thought of themselves as inhabiting a world designed for them, but then learned that this was (likely) not true, and that for many people this is a pessimistic, nihilistic conclusion.
  - RandomLensman 2y ago
    Not all religions/belief systems have/had the world (just) designed for humans. People can "cope" with other views.
    - keiferski 2y ago
      Definitely true, but: - I'm talking primarily about the Western world and its legacy of Christianity. The situation is different in India, China, etc. - Even then, in practice, most successful religions tend to have a human-like personal figure in an important place, even if the religion itself is technically non-personal.
      - soco 2y ago
        If the point is about "humanity" and how the world cannot have non-human goals, then rejecting the inconvenient religions (oriental, animistic, whatever) is definitely not a convincing argument. Those are just as humans, and don't explain the world in the convenient western way. So yes, we can very well live in a world not designed for humans.
        keiferski 2y ago
        The point is about Western society and its progression, not “humans” in general. So yes, one route may to be create a belief system more similar to animist or other religions. But that is itself a tall order. A lot of this has to do with the Enlightenment project and disenchantment so it’s already largely focused on the Western world to begin with. Other places have less a history with this.
1propionyl 2y ago
> a story that still centers humanity in the universe and offers a better worldview than "you're a primate lost in space." The fact of being a self-aware meta-cognitive primate lost in space isn't enough of a miracle to justify feeling centered in the universe?
- keiferski 2y ago
  It might be, but I don't think culture at large finds this story very inspirational.
  - hshshshshsh 2y ago
    Culture is the problem. Remove the dead beliefs. Replace it with something alive. Live from awareness.
  - yldedly 2y ago
    Why do you think that is? Is this narrative too complicated, or too different from the sort of myths that we naturally tend to create? I wonder whether it'd be possible to make the story more inspirational by telling it in more accessible ways.
    - keiferski 2y ago
      Hard to say. It might be simply a supply problem- most movies, books etc. don’t really promote this vision of humanity’s place in the world, so it indeed might be a question of accessibility. Historically, belief systems definitely had a wide range of “content” aimed at different levels of society. But there also seems to be a real interest in “spiritual” needs, whatever that might mean in particular. And so a purely scientific approach may not be enough in the first place. Personally I think it may be too much of a past-focused narrative to be very compelling. Most successful religions have a vision of the future, not merely the past.
      - yldedly 2y ago
        Do have some proposal for a narrative that could work?
em-bee 2y ago
The answer that is really needed IMO is a way of squaring contemporary scientific knowledge with a story that still centers humanity in the universe i agree. science and religion need to be in harmony and not contradict each other. if there is an apparent contradiction we need to open to the possibility that we are either misinterpreting the religious claim or that the scientific findings need further research or even both.