"Wow, that is good... for the ancients." Have you found yourself saying things like that (my sister did awhile back, and it got me thinking). That, by the way, would be the definition of chronological snobbery-a fun phrase I'm borrowing and slightly modifying from CS Lewis. Essentially, it is the belief that where we are in history is better than any other time. What right have we to assume that we're so much better than the ancients? Really, that's just a leftover notion from evolutionary thought and the 20th century infatuation with progress (things will just get better and better! - which means they had to start worse). Actually, Biblically speaking, we would expect the ancients to be farther along technologically, and in everything, for that matter, than we are. After all, they were closer to Creation, weren't they? Their genes and their world had had less time to degenerate. It really shouldn't surprise us that they were able to build such great architecture (the only thing that really lasts). Remember too that our attitude toward history started at the Enlightenment, when they thought they were emerging from the "Dark Ages" and primordial times into an era of new reason, light and promise. I would ask-what do we really know about the ancients or the middle ages? Were the Dark Ages as dark as we usually see them? Were the ancients as barbaric as we'd like to think? And here's the really novel question: how do we know our age is so good?
Here's a genuinely interesting thought: what if the hallmarks of what we call "progress" are actually symptoms of our decline? For instance, what if computers had never been invented before simply because they were not needed? Because we were smarter, faster back then? Talk about a bit of revisionist history! What if we hadn't learned these things about science because before, we knew they weren't important? Or what if we knew more, then lost it?
I don't know... it's a theory! :-)
6 comments:
Interesting indeed. ^_^
If you asked Eric, he would probably agree with the idea that we are 'lower' beings now...I was talking to him about the subject some time ago, and he stated that the genetics of man were steadily falling(he said more, but that was almost two years ago, so I really don't remember).
I have studied the ancients in school quite a bit...some interesting things for your postulate: Not only are there records of excellent architecture, but there are signs that ancient civilizations also had a sanitary system almost the equivalent of ours.
Also, especially among those of the Middle East, there were many advancements in medicine, astronomy, and other such that almost rival our inventions today. Plus, I have gone over the thoughts of how cooking and the recipes we have today are highly unlikely to have come about by trial and error, so it is likely that the ancients had greater amounts of "raw intelligence".
A couple things, though: the thought that the ages past were way better than where we are now is quite prevalent in some circles. Our age may not necessarily be better than the others, but I think it is good to accept the advances we have made as advances, and keep moving forward. It would rather be detrimental to humanity's attempt to improve if they thought that "advancing" was really "declining".
Besides, I don't know if I could look at things in science and decide that they were not important, much less decide not to learn them. As nothing is new under the sun, I don't think humanity could have changed /that/ much. However, it is quite possible that we knew more, and then lost it.
I like the thought. ^_^ Keep up the theories+conceptions! They are quite interesting thoughts to play with.
--Josiah C.
Ahh... I like it when you comment and say "I disagree." That often tells me that I have miscommunicated. Otherwise, it points out flaws in my little ideas, which is excellent :-).
In this case, I do not think I was clear. (typical me *sigh*)
Computers (or such things) *are* symbols of progress. They're advances. What I'm saying is that we're still smart enough to come up with something that will compensate for our growing weaknesses :-). It's just the thought that we need /more/ help than we used to that makes computers etc a "symptom of our decline" (to quote myself :-)) Does that make sense?
Yeah, that makes sense. Thanks for clarifying. ^_^
--Josiah C.
Oh, here is another thought: what if our "symptoms of decline" are not actual physical changes of decline(as in our biological structure is becoming more inferior), but rather a mentality that places priorities on the wrong things? So we don't learn as much or think up as interesting thoughts not because we cannot, but rather because we do not want to learn as much? For example, if we chose to do all of the mental calculations/research/learning in general ourselves, our brains would compensate to that speed, and we would not need a computer--rather, we would be able to do it all ourselves. I have heard of such things happening before. But it may be that we have become lazy, and so created the computer to do the work for us, and chose not to do the work ourselves.
Do you know what I mean, and does that make sense?
--Josiah C.
Hmm... so computers/technology aren't symptoms of physical decline, rather moral decay? Not much of a more cheerful prospect, I'd say :-). Definitely a thought, though! ;-)
Actually, it is kind of a more cheerful prospect, in a way. Not that moral decay is a good thing, but look at it this way: with physical change, it is irreversible. All you can do is watch in sadness as each successive generation thinks less deeply, lowers in intelligence and relies on technology more. But with moral decay, it can be changed. By teaching the correct mentality, people can learn, change, grow, etc.
'Tis a strange optimism, but it is more optimistic than physical change. ^_^
--Josiah C.
Post a Comment