I think I'll get this for my friend. It'll piss him off but in an appreciative way. In any case, I agree about progress being a myth and that thinking people have "unthinking ideas." An assault upon that cluster of annoying ideas has been a long time coming.
That being said, while I have to read it first it doesn't sound like Gray gives us anything new. The book sounds like it tries to spank us in the ass with an acceptance of anti-humanism, which isn't a healthy mentality to live with irrespective of how much we value progress. Can't progress be simply critiqued in and of itself? It appears Anthropocene, and the idea that we are animals and not exalted humans comes from science and evolution, meaning it comes from the same flawed source as the humanists and believers in scientism relying on Darwin. And no matter what a philosopher chooses to argue, look at our cities and our creations: then point to an animal that has come close to doing the same thing. We are different from other animals: that's a fact we only need eyes to determine. (I don't accept that whole postmodernist shtick where it's all an illusion: and if it is, only God could create that, which gives Christianity the victory anyway. Which is fine with me, but even then it wouldn't make sense for God to make it all an illusion because if I'm engaging in the sin of gluttony, then isn't my sin just an illusion too?)
Correct me if I'm wrong. But good recommendation. I'll be sure to check this book out.
It's not an "anti-humanism" outlook that Gray is trying to purvey. Rather, he's pointing out the critical flaws of having an unquestioning faith in humanism. As he points out:
"Humanism can mean many things, but for us it means belief in progress. To believe in progress is to believe that, by using the new powers given us by growing scientific knowledge, humans can free themselves from the limits that frame the lives of other animals. This is the hope of nearly everybody nowadays, but it is groundless. For though human knowledge will very likely continue to grow and with it human power, the human animal will stay the same: a highly inventive species that is also one of the most predatory and destructive."
Ah okay. Thanks for the clarification, that makes a lot more sense. And yeah, I would say I agree: it is groundless. And that is a relevant idea today.
If so, please consider clicking the above link and liking the Notes post—leave a comment or even share within your own community. Poetry lives on in the minds of hearts of writers, it breathes on the page.
Your voice can be heard among the starry illuminations, howling at the moon.
So somehow I was transported back in time to such days of all the different authors, books we were reading. In Alaska, I now recall sitting in the bottom of a boat unloading salmon into a net/ “brailer” - discussing different authors and the merits of their writing- oAhhj. Those were the days- something about being by the sea for me!! So thank you for a nostalgic journey as I go back to menial labor/ laundry chores
Once upon a time, I lived on Nantucket in 1988 . I did a bunch of different odd jobs. I used to help my friend Tom videotape events for Channel 3. I was chosen to interview John Barth when he came to visit the island and had just published Lost in The Funhouse” as I was familiar with his work - “ Giles Goat Boy”...”The Sotweed Factor” that was a great pleasure to encounter such a genuine fellow- not Kurt Vonnegut like at all.
If so, please consider clicking the above link and liking the Notes post—leave a comment or even share within your own community. Poetry lives on in the minds of hearts of writers, it breathes on the page.
Your voice can be heard among the starry illuminations, howling at the moon.
This call to distance ourselves from the human viewpoint is reminiscent of Robinson Jeffers.
“Nature knows that people are a tide that swells and in time will ebb, and all their works dissolve ... As for us: We must uncenter our minds from ourselves. We must unhumanize our views a little and become confident as the rock and ocean that we are made from.”
This is too post modern and lacking in nuance. My partner just got a hip replacement and is walking without pain for the first time in 2 years. Just 55 years ago, within her lifetime, she would have been condemned to a wheelchair for the rest of her life. That is progress and it's based on medical science. Moreover, I count myself as a humanist but do not believe - and Darwin never advocated - that evolution is in any way "progress". To argue that that is what he was saying is a fundamental misreading. Finally, Plato was arguing for the maintenance of a static society, ruled by philosopher kings whose judgment was unerring. That's a recipe for autocracy and tyranny, not a life of contemplation.
If so, please consider clicking the above link and liking the Notes post—leave a comment or even share within your own community. Poetry lives on in the minds of hearts of writers, it breathes on the page.
Your voice can be heard among the starry illuminations, howling at the moon.
Believing that humans can free themselves from the limits that frame the lives of other animals could only happen if we would defeat death. That for now is not an option. It would also be a lunacy to deny our very survival instincts that urge us to become violent when being in danger. There are certain amounts of violence at the core of each of us and rightfully so. They are needed still. But in the same time the technological growth and the lifestyle improvements led to a visible growth of our expectations when it comes to the human animal as you call it. I mean as a community we don’t cut hands of thieves anymore, we don’t burn women for being witches, we don’t put peoples under guillotine anymore (at least not in Europe).
There is an undeniable progress imposed by education so probably adjusting our expectations and learning to live at bay with our animal instincts would help us more to understand our condition. But saying that there is no hope is in my opinion wrong
See folks, I told you. Read the book. Your quick, reactionary response is a sure sign of faith. As Robert Pirsig once reminded us:
“You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.”
Unsurprisingly, you didn't say anything. At all. Your disagreement is rooted in your own belief system which is why hearing a different perspective throws you into a tizzy.
See, you missed the premise of the article. He's not speaking of "incredible leaps" in progress, in fact, he acknowledges this. He's speaking about the progress of the Human Being as an self-conscious organism -- "For though human knowledge will very likely continue to grow and with it human power, the human animal will stay the same: a highly inventive species that is also one of the most predatory and destructive."
Look around at this highly unhealthy, over-medicated, greatly divisive and violent society. This is what you call progress? The human animal is in decline at the cost of our great advances in science and technology.
I’m gonna have to read this book. Sounds intellectually delicious in a time of linguistic horse-shit.
“Science will never be used chiefly to pursue truth, or to improve human life. The uses of knowledge will always be as shifting and crooked as humans are themselves. Humans use what they know to meet their most urgent needs – even if the result is ruin."
Very true. I think humans are captured, essentially, by our genetics and our perceptions and our unceasing need for technological growth at any costs. We tell ourselves a story that we’re doing what we do for the sake of better lives. I don’t think that’s true. I think we do it because we can’t help ourselves. We do it out of psychological need, not any genuine desire to save mankind. We’re as helpless as babies trying to walk: All we can do is scream and kick our legs. A newborn screaming and kicking its legs: That is mankind. That’s our tiresome thirst for power, tech, control. This all makes me think of Camus, especially The Myth of Sisyphus.
Never underestimate the power of the placebo to heal. Also, Roger Bannister breaking an unbreakable running record led to many people breaking the same record. Be careful what you choose to believe in.
If anyone is interested in a little more in depth understanding of Mr. Gray's philosophy, here's a brief 10 minute interview well worth your time.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=ft10Kx4Enos&fbclid=IwAR3ulAFLYVG_01nwmHTskKKrilMj-R-9iFr7Lh9zNzpX51DcGA8w1uY6JX0
I think I'll get this for my friend. It'll piss him off but in an appreciative way. In any case, I agree about progress being a myth and that thinking people have "unthinking ideas." An assault upon that cluster of annoying ideas has been a long time coming.
That being said, while I have to read it first it doesn't sound like Gray gives us anything new. The book sounds like it tries to spank us in the ass with an acceptance of anti-humanism, which isn't a healthy mentality to live with irrespective of how much we value progress. Can't progress be simply critiqued in and of itself? It appears Anthropocene, and the idea that we are animals and not exalted humans comes from science and evolution, meaning it comes from the same flawed source as the humanists and believers in scientism relying on Darwin. And no matter what a philosopher chooses to argue, look at our cities and our creations: then point to an animal that has come close to doing the same thing. We are different from other animals: that's a fact we only need eyes to determine. (I don't accept that whole postmodernist shtick where it's all an illusion: and if it is, only God could create that, which gives Christianity the victory anyway. Which is fine with me, but even then it wouldn't make sense for God to make it all an illusion because if I'm engaging in the sin of gluttony, then isn't my sin just an illusion too?)
Correct me if I'm wrong. But good recommendation. I'll be sure to check this book out.
It's not an "anti-humanism" outlook that Gray is trying to purvey. Rather, he's pointing out the critical flaws of having an unquestioning faith in humanism. As he points out:
"Humanism can mean many things, but for us it means belief in progress. To believe in progress is to believe that, by using the new powers given us by growing scientific knowledge, humans can free themselves from the limits that frame the lives of other animals. This is the hope of nearly everybody nowadays, but it is groundless. For though human knowledge will very likely continue to grow and with it human power, the human animal will stay the same: a highly inventive species that is also one of the most predatory and destructive."
Ah okay. Thanks for the clarification, that makes a lot more sense. And yeah, I would say I agree: it is groundless. And that is a relevant idea today.
I am starting a movement to ask Substack to put in a poetry section on the website - https://substack.com/profile/10309929-david/note/c-15537618
Feel free to support, and thank you as always :)
Neat idea. Just restacked. Feel free to add me to your list.
Done! thank you my man
In a world where word definitions can be changed to suit the emotional state of the few. Progress has no meaning.
Fine writer and reader of Substack—we are starting a movement to get a poetry section added to the platform. Can I ask, are you with us?
https://substack.com/profile/10309929-david/note/c-15579327
If so, please consider clicking the above link and liking the Notes post—leave a comment or even share within your own community. Poetry lives on in the minds of hearts of writers, it breathes on the page.
Your voice can be heard among the starry illuminations, howling at the moon.
Thank you for your time and support.
Love and appreciation,
David
So somehow I was transported back in time to such days of all the different authors, books we were reading. In Alaska, I now recall sitting in the bottom of a boat unloading salmon into a net/ “brailer” - discussing different authors and the merits of their writing- oAhhj. Those were the days- something about being by the sea for me!! So thank you for a nostalgic journey as I go back to menial labor/ laundry chores
Once upon a time, I lived on Nantucket in 1988 . I did a bunch of different odd jobs. I used to help my friend Tom videotape events for Channel 3. I was chosen to interview John Barth when he came to visit the island and had just published Lost in The Funhouse” as I was familiar with his work - “ Giles Goat Boy”...”The Sotweed Factor” that was a great pleasure to encounter such a genuine fellow- not Kurt Vonnegut like at all.
Fine writer and reader of Substack—we are starting a movement to get a poetry section added to the platform. Can I ask, are you with us?
https://substack.com/profile/10309929-david/note/c-15579327
If so, please consider clicking the above link and liking the Notes post—leave a comment or even share within your own community. Poetry lives on in the minds of hearts of writers, it breathes on the page.
Your voice can be heard among the starry illuminations, howling at the moon.
Thank you for your time and support.
Love and appreciation,
David
This call to distance ourselves from the human viewpoint is reminiscent of Robinson Jeffers.
“Nature knows that people are a tide that swells and in time will ebb, and all their works dissolve ... As for us: We must uncenter our minds from ourselves. We must unhumanize our views a little and become confident as the rock and ocean that we are made from.”
This is too post modern and lacking in nuance. My partner just got a hip replacement and is walking without pain for the first time in 2 years. Just 55 years ago, within her lifetime, she would have been condemned to a wheelchair for the rest of her life. That is progress and it's based on medical science. Moreover, I count myself as a humanist but do not believe - and Darwin never advocated - that evolution is in any way "progress". To argue that that is what he was saying is a fundamental misreading. Finally, Plato was arguing for the maintenance of a static society, ruled by philosopher kings whose judgment was unerring. That's a recipe for autocracy and tyranny, not a life of contemplation.
Fine writer and reader of Substack—we are starting a movement to get a poetry section added to the platform. Can I ask, are you with us?
https://substack.com/profile/10309929-david/note/c-15579327
If so, please consider clicking the above link and liking the Notes post—leave a comment or even share within your own community. Poetry lives on in the minds of hearts of writers, it breathes on the page.
Your voice can be heard among the starry illuminations, howling at the moon.
Thank you for your time and support.
Love and appreciation,
David
Believing that humans can free themselves from the limits that frame the lives of other animals could only happen if we would defeat death. That for now is not an option. It would also be a lunacy to deny our very survival instincts that urge us to become violent when being in danger. There are certain amounts of violence at the core of each of us and rightfully so. They are needed still. But in the same time the technological growth and the lifestyle improvements led to a visible growth of our expectations when it comes to the human animal as you call it. I mean as a community we don’t cut hands of thieves anymore, we don’t burn women for being witches, we don’t put peoples under guillotine anymore (at least not in Europe).
There is an undeniable progress imposed by education so probably adjusting our expectations and learning to live at bay with our animal instincts would help us more to understand our condition. But saying that there is no hope is in my opinion wrong
Contemplation as an individual act versus control over the external. Spot on.
I seem to recall the original negator of 'progress' as an ideal was Aristotle, but memory fades as I progress(!!) through days and nights.
Humanism is NOT a religion. I've never read a more boneheaded article in my life.
See folks, I told you. Read the book. Your quick, reactionary response is a sure sign of faith. As Robert Pirsig once reminded us:
“You are never dedicated to something you have complete confidence in. No one is fanatically shouting that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. They know it's going to rise tomorrow. When people are fanatically dedicated to political or religious faiths or any other kinds of dogmas or goals, it's always because these dogmas or goals are in doubt.”
I read your article. You apparently lack the faintest idea of what the word "faith" even means.
And Robert Pirsig is not exactly an intellectual worth deriving wisdom from.
Unsurprisingly, you didn't say anything. At all. Your disagreement is rooted in your own belief system which is why hearing a different perspective throws you into a tizzy.
Grab your dictionary and look up the word "faith".
And then thank your lucky stars that the incredible leaps in human progress that have have been made by secular humanists is, in fact, not a myth.
See, you missed the premise of the article. He's not speaking of "incredible leaps" in progress, in fact, he acknowledges this. He's speaking about the progress of the Human Being as an self-conscious organism -- "For though human knowledge will very likely continue to grow and with it human power, the human animal will stay the same: a highly inventive species that is also one of the most predatory and destructive."
Look around at this highly unhealthy, over-medicated, greatly divisive and violent society. This is what you call progress? The human animal is in decline at the cost of our great advances in science and technology.
Главная проблема - освобождение от иллюзий, здесь мы почти бессильны...
I’m gonna have to read this book. Sounds intellectually delicious in a time of linguistic horse-shit.
“Science will never be used chiefly to pursue truth, or to improve human life. The uses of knowledge will always be as shifting and crooked as humans are themselves. Humans use what they know to meet their most urgent needs – even if the result is ruin."
Very true. I think humans are captured, essentially, by our genetics and our perceptions and our unceasing need for technological growth at any costs. We tell ourselves a story that we’re doing what we do for the sake of better lives. I don’t think that’s true. I think we do it because we can’t help ourselves. We do it out of psychological need, not any genuine desire to save mankind. We’re as helpless as babies trying to walk: All we can do is scream and kick our legs. A newborn screaming and kicking its legs: That is mankind. That’s our tiresome thirst for power, tech, control. This all makes me think of Camus, especially The Myth of Sisyphus.
Michael Mohr
‘Sincere American Writing’
https://michaelmohr.substack.com/
Run, Forrest, Run
What a wondrous play. THEN;
GOAL!
and the world goes to smithereens. Don't worry, be happy.
Never underestimate the power of the placebo to heal. Also, Roger Bannister breaking an unbreakable running record led to many people breaking the same record. Be careful what you choose to believe in.