I’ve covered the sorry state of knowledge and inherent lack of truth that plagues contemporary society.
But it didn’t start yesterday or even 100 years ago! It’s an eternally recurring theme of dumbing-down and almost-truths dispensed by nasty people posing as intellectual authorities over thousands of years. There is an endemic ‘loss of wisdom’ that has an iteratively degenerative effect, gaining more momentum with each generation.
Historically these lies, these tales, were of a philosophical or mythical nature and virtually harmless. They were stories that became true through retelling: Hercules, Romulus, Arthur. The stories were told first by the travelling bard, then more abstractly through tribalism and shamanism. Polytheism followed with its anthropomorphic (god of wine, god of war) pantheon of valiant heroes and demigods. Finally monotheism trumped them all and wrapped up with its epic, fearsomely vengeful tale of apocalyptic events.
Old wives’ tales (or fables or myths or whatever!) might’ve been lies or half-truths but they didn’t really harm anyone; they might have been ‘not ideal’, but that’s not the point — they were moving towards the ideal — they were retold to children with good intentions! The same could be said for the basic spiritual maxims of most religions: everlasting life; don’t murder; try your best not to sodomise your brother’s wife; treat others how you would like to be treated. All good but… it sadly didn’t last. Something changed. All of a sudden enforcement entered the equation. Arbitrary enforcement: rules, laws and peer pressure with little or no basis in moral/cultural advancement or ethical living. If abstract/intellectual enforcement wasn’t enough, there was a strong physical aspect too: witch-hunts, the Inquisition and the Crusades are but a few obvious examples.
Why did it happen? For thousands of years our focus had been on becoming a more advanced race. But one day, probably after the fall of Rome, we woke up and well… we fell asleep again. Life was no longer about pushing the progress of civilisation. Perhaps it was our growing understanding of human anatomy and psychology that caused the change. Maybe it was due to the formation of metropolises like Rome and the urgent need to control large groups of people quickly and easily. Personally I think the continued development of written and spoken language — and rhetoric — played a big role. Whatever it was, something snapped. No longer was storytelling used to share wisdom or morals to improve our progeny’s standard of living. Gone were the tales that frightened children away from actual dangers like dank caves or poisonous fruits.
A new breed of story started to appear, tales that weaved lies and believable half-truths into their narrative. And we know that words, both written and spoken, have a terrible power. Instead of cresting taller peaks and pushing towards new horizons people started to fear their surroundings. Authorities of knowledge slowly faded away to be replaced by scary chieftains, oppressive teachers, greedy priests and, of course, a vengeful God.
I’ve written about magic before and how it is ultimately synonymous with technology. Television was magic (find an old person that was around when television was invented and talk to them about it!) but sure enough, it very quickly became mundane. What do you think would’ve happened to the inventor of the television if he had been around in the Middle Ages? What do you think ‘witchcraft’ actually was? With such an attitude towards innovation and revolution (or evolution, hah!), is it a surprise that books, education and intellectual enlightenment all but disappeared for 1,000 years?
For a very, very long time the pursuit of knowledge and truth — science! — was frowned upon, persecuted. Scientists were shunned or burnt at the stake. Why?
Because they were dangerous. Knowledge is power.
We humans learnt just enough for the monotheistic surge to take place. We learnt how to exploit the human love of mystery with smart wit and sharp turns of dogmatic phrase. We have become a scared and tentative flock too fearful to break from the pack. In essence we learnt just enough to be dominated and no more.
And now we await — or do we create? – the next Renaissance where veracity of knowledge is returned to us.
***
Still more to come, I think; on prejudice and ignorance. Oh, and if you’re reading this on the blog itself, remember you can double click a word to find out what it means!
Eleni
Aug 26, 2009
Are you suggesting that “enforcement” didn’t happen before… I don’t know when you’re saying it appeared… some time prior to “all of a sudden”? Are you implying that enforcement of things like “don’t murder” is negative? Vague, vague, vague.
As for the “Why did it happen”, you’ll have to help me out here, since I clearly don’t know much about these things. What does knowledge of anatomy have to do with the rise of enforcement? And how could the formation of metropolises like Rome be a cause of something you just said happened after the fall of Rome? And did old wives’ tales really vanish? Children all suddenly started munching on poisonous fruits?
Was the inclusion of lies and half-truths into this vague “new breed of story” really new? Nothing before this mysterious era had any lies or half-truths?
“What do you think ‘witchcraft’ actually was?” Is this a rhetorical question the answer to which you mean to be “science”? I agree that in many contexts it is appropriate to say that science, particularly science we don’t understand, is akin to magic. And I agree that there were many scientists branded as heretics. But I would have said (and I could be wrong here) that “witchcraft” was supposed to be paganism, believed by certain groups to be devil worship (maybe there was some of that, too), and the label was used against enemies of these groups, whether scientists or not. It’s kind of hard to pick at a rhetorical question, but if I have followed it correctly, I’d say it’s an unfair generalization.
And I’m still trying to follow the flow of that “We humans learnt” paragraph. Maybe it’s the switching of tense and person (“we” are both the exploiters and the exploited, which is true but doesn’t make for a smooth read). When we arrive at that key point “we learnt just enough to be dominated”, it’s a cool point, but it’s not clear where it comes from. I guess you’ve explained how we’ve learned enough to exploit people, but I don’t see where you’ve explained how we’ve learned enough to be exploited (which is different).
Sorry if I don’t make sense and I’m rambling a bit; it’s almost my bedtime. But I have to make sure that someone gives you a hard time
timoteo
Aug 26, 2009
I would think that Science may still very well be frowned up now, or in the very near future will be of greater debate. Medical sciences, especially genetics, are pushing the envelope. I would expect in the coming years, however long that may be, that some of these breakthroughs will spark great support and great backlash simultaneously.
sebastian
Aug 26, 2009
Mornin’! You should try to keep things short and sweet if you are afraid of rambling; I mean, I can understand the gist of what you’re saying, but the actual _point_ is probably a little obfuscated. If you really want to give me a hard time, you need to find a meatier bone to chew!
What’s the difference between learning how to exploit people, and learning enough to be exploited? If I learn enough to exploit people — I am also part of the group ‘people’ — then it’s safe to assume that someone can exploit me with the same knowledge?
Re: anatomy/psychology — compare to sheep or cows or any other animal. Do you really think that they go around lying to each other or murdering each other? Or weaving intricate almost-truths to keep the kids in-line?
With knowledge of humans comes power over humans. Do you think ‘the four humours’ have as much power as ‘hypnosis’? Or leeches have the same power as modern drugs?
I cited Rome because that’s where monotheism in earnest (Judaism never really took off) started to appear. You perhaps know that the downfall of Rome occurred quite soon after Emperor Constantine embraced a singular, vengeful god instead of the Roman ideal of ‘you can believe in whatever you like’ (which many historians think is the reason Rome and her empire were so damn successful).
I never said ‘conventional wisdom’ disappeared, but I have a feeling stories changed from ‘don’t go there after dark’ into ‘remember, if you sleep with other boys you are going to hell!’
Finally, re: enforcement — big difference between wanting to lead a good life for the sake of your family/friends/local township, vs. being told HOW TO lead a GOOD LIFE by GIVING YOURSELF unto GOD (or whatever — you get the idea).
sebastian
Aug 26, 2009
Tim, it’s an odd one, and something I was trying to think about as I wrote this.
Are we still in those dark ages?
I think most people consider us to be quite ‘enlightened’ nowadays, at least compared to back then. But perhaps it’s a different kind of darkness, which is what I’m trying to work out.
Certainly it’s not like books are being burnt, or _we’re_ being burnt at the stake for our beliefs. Sure, in some countries there’s still some issues with God, but most of Europe is ‘free’ in that sense now.
Not sure. Need to think on it some more
It’s incredibly easy to discuss things, looking back. But to be honest I am utterly unsure of where genetics/quantum science is going. I think we can expect very, very big changes in the next few years.
Hezabelle
Aug 26, 2009
Early Rome didn’t necessarily believe that “you could believe whatever you’d like.” It was more that the barbarians, slaves and non-citizens could believe what they’d like. They still persecuted Christians and Jews, and Gods forbid if you were a Roman citizen who didn’t celebrate the Saturnalia or pray to Janus.
I really don’t think you can attribute the fall of Rome to the rise of monotheism. There are a lot of reasons for the fall of Rome – political corruption, division of power, lack of unity and crazy emperors with lead poisoning – but monotheism isn’t usually one of them. In fact, Constantine was also emperor just after they’d split Rome in two and he’s the one who moved the capital. That would more likely be a cause than his death-bed conversion to Christianity. In fact, the rise of Christianity in Rome could easily be attributed to the Edict of Milan which Constantine signed in a “you can believe whatever you’d like” philosophy.
I find it hard to think that we’re not advancing now. Sure, there were the Dark Ages – they were inevitable not because of monotheism but because of a change in the world. There were too many people, there was too much suffering. A strict religion was needed to prevent chaos. And yes, there were countless abuses… but they were human abuses. They would have occurred no matter the religion. Then we emerged from the Dark Ages and had the Renaissance. And just when that was getting old we had the Industrial Revolution. Now, we’re in a technological revolution. Twenty years ago, no one could have imagined that we would all have laptops and iPhones and blogs and that communication would be instantaneous to any part of the world. We’ve advanced so far in telecommunications, medicine (do you think people ever thought you’d actually be able to do successful organ transplants?) and everywhere else. I bet in 50 years, textbooks will have a term for this time, something akin to the Industrial Revolution.
sebastian
Aug 26, 2009
There you are with your extensive knowledge of Rome that I don’t have!
Yes, I’m talking about when Rome started to persecute Jews and Christians on a large scale. I’m not talking about the ghettos. I’m not talking about picking on Jews or Christians. It’s usual to pick on the outsiders…! From what we know of that time, there were some fairly successful Jews in Italian cities, right? They didn’t have an easy life, but they were still allowed to flourish?
(I could be totally wrong, but as I said, my history isn’t perfect!)
You gloss over what caused the Dark Ages. Too many people? What…? Rome was the only large city of the time. It’s often said that the Dark Ages/Middle Ages CREATED the other large cities of Europe, and the borders you see today are due to medieval military actions.
Do you have any source on Christianity being the saving grace of the Dark Ages, or is it just an opinion like mine?
Hezabelle
Aug 26, 2009
I’m not saying that Christianity was the “saving grace” of the Dark Ages. But think about this. Your life is horrible. You spent 14 hours a day trying to produce crops from rocky soil. 3 out of 5 of your children die before they reach the age of one, if they’re even born alive in the first place. You’re probably on your second or third wife, having lost the first in childbirth. Your neighbours just contracted the Plague and you’re pretty sure you’re next…. Don’t you think you’d want to believe that you’re going to a better place when, at the old age of 40, you finally kick the bucket? That’s what religion did for people in the Dark Ages. That’s why it was needed. Hope. Survival. So no, I don’t really have a source for this and it’s just an opinion. It’s the only way religion makes sense to me as an atheist.
You’re right, I didn’t clarify my point of about there being too many people… And I didn’t say it right either. What I meant was that one of the reasons that the Roman Empire became so difficult to rule was that it was too large, and there were too many people too far away from the central power. And unlike in Julius Caesar’s time, these people weren’t just unorganized barbarians anymore. Wealth had spread out from the centre into the provinces. So these people who were several months journey away from Rome (or Constantinople) were actually able to DO something about their unhappiness and repression. So the Roman Empire, like every Empire, was doomed to fall simply because it had grown too vast to be handled the way it was before. That’s why an institution like religion was more apt to controlling the masses. They gave authority to localities. Everyone had to obey God, and he was everywhere. And if you didn’t, there were churches, bishops, priests everywhere to remind you. The only way that the Romans could have managed something like that would be to admit that they weren’t omniscient and to establish a system of local control against the chaos.
It’s sad that the Dark Ages had to go and happen and ruin all the progress of our delightful Greeks and Romans, but I really feel like it was just an inevitable part of human history. Even the Greeks themselves had a long Dark Age, throwing away all the progress they’d made with Linear A and B, and the Sumerian writing techniques. And if you think about it, we got ourselves another one after the Renaissance, that was only saved by the Industrial Revolution. Maybe we’ll even have another one someday, after zombies or robots take over the world or something.
sebastian
Aug 26, 2009
Well, we’re agreeing now, Hez!
As we’ve both said a few times now (and the historians), monotheism came about as Rome grew.
I’ve never said religion in and unto itself is bad, please don’t forget that. I simply said that religion (monotheism) was the probable cause of the Dark Ages. But I don’t mean the existence of the Bible caused the Dark Ages — it had already been around for a few hundred years! But something changed, something snappy, something gained traction.
That’s what I was trying to get my head around. And I’m almost certain it was caused by religion shifting from a self-help thing into a I-hope-I-don’t-go-to-hell thing.
But you’re right about there being other dark ages. And perhaps we’re in one right now, which is what I hint at the end!
Hezabelle
Aug 26, 2009
I still don’t think that religion is a CAUSE for the Dark Ages so much as a reaction to it. The reason Christianity was able to gain so many followers so quickly was because it appealed directly to the poor and powerless, of which there were many in the Roman Empire. But I definitely do agree with the idea of it changing from self-help to “a I-hope-I-don’t-go-to-hell thing.” That’s the problem with religion right there, isn’t it?
sebastian
Aug 26, 2009
No…!
You can see the difference between Roman Catholicism and Church of England. One, you live in fear of ever making it to heaven, the other you just go to Church every so often, try not to divorce too much, and you’re _in_.
Anyway, that’s a topic for another day. Let’s stick to knowledge
Anonymous
Aug 28, 2009
Is this what you think about after you’ve finished masturbating onto pom poms?