Quaestio

     The current socioeconomic paradigm that our species perpetuates is inextricably linked to technology. Virtually all aspects of our everyday lives in industrialized nations depend upon and are typically a result of the exponential advancements of technology. We are at a point which we can pick up a handheld device, type in a few numbers, and, within seconds, talk face-to-face with anyone else on the planet with a similar device. Our ever-deepening understanding of the universe and our interaction with it has guided us through solving unsolvable problems, curing incurable diseases, and making science fiction science fact. We’ve climbed the highest mountains, dived to the deepest ocean trenches, and even stepped foot on Earth’s moon. Right now, there are people orbiting the planet on a station over 200 kilometers above this majestic world! Think about it: If even a single modern marvel of engineering were to somehow be transported to Aristotle’s time, it would likely be, paraphrasing Arthur C. Clarke, indistinguishable from magic to the people of that period. In fact, one might be revered as a god for possessing and using such technology. Of course, this seems to be characteristic of the ancient method of hasty generalizations for god attributes: If something is not understood, it is often attributed to a particular “god”; a man-made god. And, where there’s a man-made god, something has been anthropomorphized. In Aristotle’s case, the highest form of happiness, a human emotion, has been expressed as a characteristic of gods. As well, according to Aristotle, our contemplative ability is the only way to approximate the gods’ “happiest lives”. But, while all of these speculations and suppositions sound quaint and convincing, we fortunately have discovered phenomena and developed concepts unfathomable in ancient times that, quite frankly, destroy many of the notions put forth in philosophical doctrines of those times. So, the question that arises through this reasoning is this: Considering the fact that we have amassed more knowledge in the past 50 years than in all of humankind’s history before that combined, should we, in 2015, be looking to and applying ancient modes of thought when tackling 21^st century ethical issues?

     One might consider the fact that a number of these modes of thought have been taught in academia for centuries. They have been the foundation of practically all ethical discussion and should still be practiced by tradition. Without such modes, a critical component of the dialogue might be overlooked or lost entirely over time. Therefore, of course it should be considered important to the overall value of a general education. And it should also follow that to rethink and perhaps change this foundation would destroy the edifice of our current cultural climate; our zeitgeist.

     Another proponent would say that most of these people were, even in their own time, venerated as brilliant intellectuals. Some might even claim that they are among the most brilliant minds to have ever lived. And, it is the intellectuals that set social and economic standards. By these standards, we have built the modern industrial civilization we all enjoy and, consequently, continue to flourish. To downplay their brilliance would undermine and nullify virtually all of our social standards.

     And, finally, yet others would offer the idea that every ancient philosopher played an integral role in the evolution of human thought. Without their insight, our civilization would be vastly different and perhaps even underdeveloped. Their thoughts reflect the zeitgeist of each particular historical period and are typically taught within the context of such and in contrast to modern society. So, understanding their work is invaluable to understanding where we come from and why we think the way we do.

     I contend that, while it is important to study ancient philosophers’ work within historical context, their work should not be the only scope through which we attempt to view our modern world; the reasons abound. Quantum mechanics, neuroscience, and germ theory are but three of the many topics that have shaped modern understanding in such a way that would seem, aside from obvious language barriers, completely foreign to ancients. Yet, it is quite accurate to state that the only reason that we are capable of sustaining (as terrible as we might actually be at doing so) over 7-billion people on this planet, is because of such modern ideas. Without quantum mechanics, we wouldn’t understand electricity as deeply as we do nor how fundamentally connected we are to the universe by it; without neuroscience, our behavioral reactions to those connections could not be explained to any truly accurate degree; and without germ theory, millions, possibly billions, of people simply would not be here due to what we now know is the contraction of easily preventable diseases and viruses. The knowledge we take for granted today—the knowledge that continues to shape our society—is so far out of the scope of ancient thought that it is not unreasonable to claim that perhaps we would even be viewed as gods in contrast. Assuming that is the case, as Aristotle suggests, in his society, someone’s only similarity to what they consider “gods” is their ability to contemplate. But, just because they contemplate, it does not necessitate that what they contemplate should or does bear any relevance to those gods or others mistaken as gods. In other words, while it is important in the 21^st century to teach and acknowledge such doctrines in their relation to the evolution of human thought, attempting to apply them to modern society is no different than attempting to apply other ancient concepts: some have been built upon or modified and work nowadays, and others do not. Centuries ago, practically everyone believed Earth was flat; that didn’t make it so. And, centuries before that, Democritus and his mentor Leucippus developed what is now considered one of the original atomic theories of the universe. So, without discrediting the strength of particular arguments within the context of the historical period or their relevance in the overall progression of human thought, I say that within the context of knowledge in 2015, such ancient philosophical views about the way the world ought to be are interesting to think and talk about, as well as intellectually stimulating, but ultimately irrelevant to changing or maintaining (whatever we prefer) modern bio-psychosocial patterns. As Buckminster Fuller once stated, “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete.” And that is what we have done. Everything about our society, including the screen you are reading this from, makes those views obsolete.

     Regarding tradition, just because people decide to follow a certain way of thinking because “granddaddy said so” does not mean that granddaddy had all the right answers. It just proves how susceptible we are to groupthink and herd mentality. Be your own leader. Question everything. Learn something new every day. Take nothing I say or anyone else says as “truth” without research. Truth is a biased and subjective notion that only becomes truth when one realizes and accepts it as such. And, with the existence of search engines such as Google, it is wonder that we still argue with broken logic and parroted, unrefined rhetoric. The closest we can get up to now is approximating the truth in our understanding of all of the phenomena we interact with. “In order to know the truth,” Jacque Fresco states, “you would have to know everything—to know what truth is.” It turns out, the more we discover about the universe, the stranger it gets; and the more it diverges from our preconceived notions of it.

     Dimitri Mendeleev would have been incapable of accurately explaining where the elements on the periodic table he designed came from. It is only through modern understanding of astrophysics that our closest approximations tell us that nearly every element comes from stars which are themselves composed mostly of hydrogen and its fusion products. Yet, it is no doubt that Mendeleev was a brilliant man—in that particular time. Today, it is unlikely that, given his understanding at the time, he would be able to get a job as a chemist. So, it becomes clear that if we accept the notion that intellectuals set social standards, and modern intellectuals stagnate their ways of thinking to match historical brilliance, then we should expect to stifle social progress of the degree which we are currently technically capable of. As a result, we should also expect that all of our modern conveniences will amount to nothing but so many tons of useless junk.

     Lastly, I wholly agree that ancient philosophers contributed massively to the progression of the dominant intellectual, cultural, and moral climate of each era since. In fact, I agree that their work should be taught and readily discussed in modern society. But, that does not require application of their work to today’s social construct. It is quite clear what results from the conflict of traditional viewpoints and the discoveries made due to our now-exponential technological progress: utter disharmony with the natural world and aggression toward each other. Case in point, religious fanatics of all types dawn ancient myth and fairy tale but modern weaponry to justify murder; and that weaponry includes bombs that not only destroy human lives but also the environment. Yet, the obvious discord of such absurdity is overlooked or outright neglected because “God told us so. And, He’s on our side!” Ridiculous! It is as though our entire society is suffering from a case of the messiah complex. And, it solves nothing. So, if we are going to address modern problems with any semblance of efficacy, it must be done through modern ways of thinking with modern understanding.