Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ll-xn!adelie!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw From: janw@inmet.UUCP Newsgroups: sci.misc Subject: Re: the trouble with modern man Message-ID: <121200020@inmet> Date: Wed, 25-Mar-87 10:17:00 EST Article-I.D.: inmet.121200020 Posted: Wed Mar 25 10:17:00 1987 Date-Received: Sat, 28-Mar-87 06:47:11 EST References: <1065@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> Lines: 60 Nf-ID: #R:cartan.Berkeley.EDU:-106500:inmet:121200020:000:2924 Nf-From: inmet.UUCP!janw Mar 25 10:17:00 1987 [tedrick@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP ] >>>The modern man is now enlightened to the fact that what plato >>>says is logically inconsistent, >Sometimes inconsistent. However the clever trickery in Plato's >arguments led directly to the formal logic of Aristotle (so that >such sophistry could be refuted). >In addition, Plato pinpointed very exactly many problems facing >man and society both then and now. (My favorite is whether it is >better to be a good man, or to appear to be a good man). One can >trace many current ideas and viewpoints back to the Greek thinkers. While agreeing with all of this, I think it does not quite answer the original poster - it only establishes the fact that the an- cients achieved a lot, and deserve respect - but not that they are still worth reading. It leaves the possibility that the moderns, standing on the old giants' shoulders, invariably see further and express what they see clearer. This is not, however, the case: somehow, in some areas, progress fails to occur. Though computation methods of 3 centuries ago may be outdated, Plato and Homer and the Bible aren't - it is a plain truth, established by reading them. And Aristophanes, even now, is *much* funnier than Johnny Carson. >The technical developments of the modern world have advantages >and disadvantages. One of my favorite examples is writing and >printing. Being able to record information and disseminate it >has obvious uses. But one disadvantage is that since it is no >longer necessary to retain information inside the human mind in >order to pass it from generation to generation, the great capaci- >ty for memorization of vast quantities of information demonstrat- >ed by the ancients is withering away. In some sense modern man is >devolving as a consequence of his technical advancement. A very good point; and there's another disadvantage. We copy things mechanically; they don't improve in the process. But oral tradition, folklore, gets edited while it is passed on; and, on the average, it gets improved. It is a process akin to natural selection. This cultural evolution depended on individual creativity. Every- one participated actively. In our culture, only wisecracks are developed like this. But TV shows, the staples of modern culture, are produced once, and then passed in millions of identical copies to the screens watched by millions of passive consumers. Books are a little different, because the reader is more active than the viewer; but still mostly passive and dependent. It is not merely memory that gets atrophied - it is creativity and independence, the mind and the heart, all the things that make us human. ... Well, at least the net is active. Here, in the electronic village, a new form of folk culture may be arising in our presence. It is still immature, but let's keep this baby alive. Jan Wasilewsky