A crash course in Western history
In your last section, you introduced the conception of commensurability. It seems now to be a logical question about how two different moral views reach commensurability. In this respect, you have the full support of Kuhnianism. You can argue about how if all we have at our disposal is abstract moral reasoning, then this becomes impossible. If, on the other hand, we have the level of cultural norms, then it seems entirely possible. Abstract reasoning will tend to follow the cultural norms anyway, in the long run. In other words, all the material you included about social evolution can go here. This includes all those analogies that you made with the philosophy of science. It will be a big leap forward for you.
But, of course, this brings us up to the point where we left off as well. For there was at least one time when abstract moral reasoning did seem to change the social order: the Age of the Enlightenment. This, then, would be the logical next thing to explore for your book.
When was the concept of natural rights first proposed? This was the most powerful moral idea behind the Age of the Enlightenment.
Natural rights evolved out of the ancient and medieval conception of the natural law. The notion of rights in particular emerged out of the rise of individualism. Individualism had its origin in the Renaissance. In this regard, one can see that the ideals and the viability of individualism seemed to spread closely hand-in-hand.
So, the power of ideas can be seen before the Enlightenment, in the Renaissance. One must then ask how these ideas came about then. One must also ask how the social conditions, including the practices, changed. Which came first, the ideas or the social conditions?
Well, it seems to me that the Renaissance was a time of great progress all around. The rise of individualism did seem to facilitate this process. By the same token, however, one could equally argue that both developments emerged from enlightened self-interest. People left the countries for towns and cities to engage in more profitable pursuits. Economic and scientific growth emerged.
In other words, one might as well ask, why did this NOT happen during the Middle Ages? What held humanity back for a thousand years?
According to the exhibit at Learner.org, it was "[f]or safety and for defense". "[P]eople in the Middle Ages formed small communities around a central lord or master."
Why for safety and defence?
To protect them from the German invaders.
Why couldn't the Roman Empire repel German invaders?
Well, they fell, didn't they?
Why?
That is an enormous question.
But I can still decide for myself what the answer is.
Well, I would say that there was a regress between the days of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance. It has been nicely figuratively captured by Isaac Asimov in his classic Foundation series. In the series, Hari Seldon is the inventor of the profound statistical science of psycho-history. He uses this science to predict the coming of a Dark Age. Consequently, to lesson the period of the dark age, he creates an enormous Foundation of knowledge. This knowledge can then be used by future generations to relearn what they had forgotten long ago.
On the one hand, you had this Roman empire that collapsed. It does not seem to have happened because of any rational factors at all. But it enabled Rome to be gradually conquered by the Germans, who were much less advanced intellectually and scientifically. I can just see Robert M. Pirsig saying that this was immoral, because it was social patterns dominating at the expense of intellectual patterns. The nomadic nature of the German tribes was not conducive to higher learning. In order to protect themselves from invasions from these tribes, people created small feudal communities. There were medieval universities, of course. But they could not well teach theories that contradicted church dogma, or they could be tried for heresy. Most people were peasants who worked in the field from sunrise to sunset. They would not have had time for higher learning.
As the feudal system of small, fortified communities spread, the threat of invasion lessened. Finally, the defectors would have become feudalists themselves because no one would be left to easily conquer. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, right? So when this happened, everyone was effectively converted over to feudalism, thereby defeating the original purpose of protecting people from invaders.
Under these circumstances, it now made sense to leave the country for the cities for greater trade. The larger the congregation of people, the greater amount of skill and productive return on one's efforts. Anyone goes to a city for more chances of employment, greater trade, a better lifestyle, and so on. When Gutenberg invented the printing press, suddenly everyone could now become more literate. This opened up everyone's mind more to higher learning. The stage was set for the Renaissance, and a return to the teachings of antiquity. People now bothered to learn the ancient languages so that they could read the literature, and translate it for everyone else as well. Relearning the work of the old masters meant that intellectual life could suitably revive itself.
There. The last sixteen hundred years of Western history in a nutshell, in a way that shows how it really did all make sense. I'm not completely sure about all the history, but I have been researching the subject online for ages now, and it has given me a feel for what would have been the case. I can flesh it out from there with time.
But, of course, this brings us up to the point where we left off as well. For there was at least one time when abstract moral reasoning did seem to change the social order: the Age of the Enlightenment. This, then, would be the logical next thing to explore for your book.
When was the concept of natural rights first proposed? This was the most powerful moral idea behind the Age of the Enlightenment.
Natural rights evolved out of the ancient and medieval conception of the natural law. The notion of rights in particular emerged out of the rise of individualism. Individualism had its origin in the Renaissance. In this regard, one can see that the ideals and the viability of individualism seemed to spread closely hand-in-hand.
So, the power of ideas can be seen before the Enlightenment, in the Renaissance. One must then ask how these ideas came about then. One must also ask how the social conditions, including the practices, changed. Which came first, the ideas or the social conditions?
Well, it seems to me that the Renaissance was a time of great progress all around. The rise of individualism did seem to facilitate this process. By the same token, however, one could equally argue that both developments emerged from enlightened self-interest. People left the countries for towns and cities to engage in more profitable pursuits. Economic and scientific growth emerged.
In other words, one might as well ask, why did this NOT happen during the Middle Ages? What held humanity back for a thousand years?
According to the exhibit at Learner.org, it was "[f]or safety and for defense". "[P]eople in the Middle Ages formed small communities around a central lord or master."
Why for safety and defence?
To protect them from the German invaders.
Why couldn't the Roman Empire repel German invaders?
Well, they fell, didn't they?
Why?
That is an enormous question.
But I can still decide for myself what the answer is.
Well, I would say that there was a regress between the days of the Roman Empire and the Renaissance. It has been nicely figuratively captured by Isaac Asimov in his classic Foundation series. In the series, Hari Seldon is the inventor of the profound statistical science of psycho-history. He uses this science to predict the coming of a Dark Age. Consequently, to lesson the period of the dark age, he creates an enormous Foundation of knowledge. This knowledge can then be used by future generations to relearn what they had forgotten long ago.
On the one hand, you had this Roman empire that collapsed. It does not seem to have happened because of any rational factors at all. But it enabled Rome to be gradually conquered by the Germans, who were much less advanced intellectually and scientifically. I can just see Robert M. Pirsig saying that this was immoral, because it was social patterns dominating at the expense of intellectual patterns. The nomadic nature of the German tribes was not conducive to higher learning. In order to protect themselves from invasions from these tribes, people created small feudal communities. There were medieval universities, of course. But they could not well teach theories that contradicted church dogma, or they could be tried for heresy. Most people were peasants who worked in the field from sunrise to sunset. They would not have had time for higher learning.
As the feudal system of small, fortified communities spread, the threat of invasion lessened. Finally, the defectors would have become feudalists themselves because no one would be left to easily conquer. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em, right? So when this happened, everyone was effectively converted over to feudalism, thereby defeating the original purpose of protecting people from invaders.
Under these circumstances, it now made sense to leave the country for the cities for greater trade. The larger the congregation of people, the greater amount of skill and productive return on one's efforts. Anyone goes to a city for more chances of employment, greater trade, a better lifestyle, and so on. When Gutenberg invented the printing press, suddenly everyone could now become more literate. This opened up everyone's mind more to higher learning. The stage was set for the Renaissance, and a return to the teachings of antiquity. People now bothered to learn the ancient languages so that they could read the literature, and translate it for everyone else as well. Relearning the work of the old masters meant that intellectual life could suitably revive itself.
There. The last sixteen hundred years of Western history in a nutshell, in a way that shows how it really did all make sense. I'm not completely sure about all the history, but I have been researching the subject online for ages now, and it has given me a feel for what would have been the case. I can flesh it out from there with time.
Comments