[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 8 KB, 200x200, Neu+75.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2546657 No.2546657 [Reply] [Original]

So.

Religion: coming back. Income inequality: heinous. Human relations and art: devastated by the internet. Our generation's "intellectuals": ineffectual, irony-poisoned, disempathic, shitty.

You have got one paragraph to convince me we're not entering a new dark age.

>> No.2546665

We're not entering a new dark age, that's stupid as hell.

>> No.2546666

>>2546665

I am not convinced!

>> No.2546670

you're conflating intellectuals with celebrities. Its sad, but its all to common with disaffected morons like you, OP.

>> No.2546674

>>2546666
Define "Dark Age".

>> No.2546675

Atheism is rising. More and more people are connecting through the internet to create and promote art, though the quality of said art isn't necessarily of a praiseworthy calibre. The dark age had plenty of good art, though. Our generation's intellectuals? Well, there are more people these days who know more about the world than the average person a hundred years ago. There are many more liberal intellectuals, and less elitist pro-upper class intellectuals.

Income inequality is a huge problem, though.

>> No.2546677

>>2546670

That's another good point. Who are our legitimate intellectuals? Chomsky? Old as fuck. Zizek? Who? Can we reach consensus on this? Why not?

>> No.2546680

>>2546657
Because we're in an age where everything is archived and detailed, where people blog and microblog their bowel movements. The definition of a dark age is a lack of records. The last dark age was simply named because they didn't write much. We however are in an age where everything is written down, where nearly everyone is literate. The archaeologists of the future will marvel at how complete our records are.

>> No.2546685

>>2546677
You're assuming that you would have to know their name for them to be intellectuals, again you conflate intellectualism with celebrity. Seriously, how do you not get this?

>> No.2546688

First off, your comparison is stupid. There were no "dark ages", it's an incredibly outmoded concept. Culture still existed after the fall of Rome and before the Renaissance. Stop giving into the self-justificatory concepts of 15th century Italian dickheads. To the extent that we can talk about a fall or decline during this period, it was largely political - not cultural as such. Second, things are by no means as bad as you are making them out to be and your analysis is simplistic and reductive. Yes, many things are getting worse, and we ought not be satisfied with the way things are or the way they are going. But for instance to say that human relations and art have "been devastated by the internet" is senselessly negative. Changed, yes, but in ways we can't even begin to comprehend. To shit on "our generation's intellectuals", while immensely tempting, isn't even a thing you can say as a considered stance, because our generation's intellectuals haven't been given the time to assemble themselves. It's entirely a social reaction, a dislike of certain people, and basing any kind of social analysis on this instinctive dislike is dumb. Third, your analysis ignores the real progress, technological and social, that has occurred. Immense progress has been made in combating racism, homophobia, prejudice. Immense technological progress has been made; we have things now we never could have had before. Fourth, to the extent that negative changes are happening, your analysis relies on the idea that we can do nothing about them.

In the long run, everything dies. Things come to an end; it is a mortal world. Our situation is not in itself different from that at any other point in history.

>> No.2546690

>>2546680

That's a good point.

What do you call an era of stagnation, then?

>> No.2546694

Income inequality is worse more because the rich are getting richer than that the poor are getting poorer. Religion is a positive force in many people's lives and has been for a long time before now. Art has nothing at all to do with the internet, except that the barriers to communication have been lowered, allowing the culture-space to be flooded.

>> No.2546695

>>2546690
Decadence. That's what the concern is.

>> No.2546696

>>2546690
Technology developing and improving at the highest rate in our history is stagnation?

>> No.2546698

>>2546690
I don't know, but I wouldn't call the era of the century following nuclear physics, quantum mechanics, relativity, the transistor, an incredibly contentious philosophical split, modern art, postmodern art (which whether you like it or not certainly haven't been stagnant), rapid changes in music due to the invention of recording and mass media, etc etc. As an era of stagnation., And if you dismiss the bulk of the last century and focus on what? the last few years? maybe a decade? its not much of an era.

I really dislike how so many people today are so shortsighted, and so impatient for new cultural revolutions or anything. Seriously. Grow up.

>> No.2546701

>>2546694
>Income inequality is worse more because the rich are getting richer than that the poor are getting poorer.

no the poor are getting poorer too

real wages have declined immensely , lifestyles propped up only by debt, etc etc etc

to the extent that technology has advanced a lot the poor are maybe better off, but they're also poorer. income inequality is a real problem and it's not just that the high end is taking off, the bottom is getting squeezed and the middle is getting pushed down.

>> No.2546699

We have computers and printers.

QED

>> No.2546706

>>2546701
Surely, the poor being better off isn't a worsening of their situation. Debt is a huge problem, sure, but aren't standards of living what count?

>> No.2546708

>>2546657
more people are smarter than at any other point in history.

>> No.2546710

You have a microwave, mother fucker.

>> No.2546711

>>2546710
I don't. Seriously just use the stove or the oven. Microwaves suck.

>> No.2546714

dark ages weren't even bad.
i hate this swooning for classical civilisations. they were shit. the greeks and romans lived in fear of god more than christians
the renaissance looked pretty but there was little progress.

as always times were and are only ever good for the wealthy.
and all round people are better off than they have ever been.

>> No.2546724

>>2546706
Well, yes, but you have to use context here. The context is that their real wages and the amount of money they have has decreased dramatically. Their economic condition has gotten worse in comparison to what it was. Their way of life has improved because of technological progress, which in no way justifies the rise in income inequality or makes it "alright". The poor are better off and that is good and we should hope for more economic progress. Speaking in economic terms, however, their situation has gotten worse.

>> No.2546723

>>2546685

What good does it do anyone if they're completely unknown?

>>2546688
>There were no "dark ages", it's an incredibly outmoded concept.
And the only true "first-world problem" is communism.
>Yes, many things are getting worse
Such as? You're going to say "environment" and "income inequality", but is that all?
>But for instance to say that human relations and art have "been devastated by the internet" is senselessly negative. Changed, yes, but in ways we can't even begin to comprehend.
You acknowledge the changes have been extensive and widespread, but don't you acknowledge the possibility that they're also at least in some part toxic? Is it probable that something this vast isn't having some negative effects?
>To shit on "our generation's intellectuals", while immensely tempting, isn't even a thing you can say as a considered stance, because our generation's intellectuals haven't been given the time to assemble themselves.
I don't really want to use the term "intellectuals". The people-who-produce-culture. Our creative class.

>Our situation is not in itself different from that at any other point in history.
This is kind of ignorant everything-is-okay-ism.

>> No.2546729

>>2546723
>What good does it do anyone if they're completely unknown?
who said they are? i just said that fact that YOU don't know them doesn't mean shit.

>> No.2546731

>>2546706

But there is more to it than that. People in the U.S. are working more than ever (more hours and more of them now that more women work full-time) but not making any more money. Wages, after adjusting for inflation, have hardly risen since the late 1970s for the working class, whereas corporations are making more money than ever.

So where is all of this money going if corporations are making much, much more money than they used to yet most of the employees aren't seeing a raise in wages? And this has been the situation for years. Which is especially concerning (and circular, even) given that our politics are mostly influenced by wealthy lobbyists.

>> No.2546733

>>2546724
Relative to what? what time period are you comparing it against?

>> No.2546737

>>2546729

I asked you which examples you'd give and you told me "you've probably never heard of them".

>> No.2546744

>>2546737
No, I said it doesn't matter if you've heard of them because intellectuals aren't celebrities. But yes you've probably never heard of any of them, because here you are bitching about hipsters as though they were the actual intellectuals.

>> No.2546745

>>2546723
What are you even coming at me for? Like, what is your point here even?

>Such as? You're going to say "environment" and "income inequality", but is that all?

Do you really want me to list things that I think are changing for the worst? Would anything be served by that? Do you think that everything in the world is getting better? WTF is your point?

>You acknowledge the changes have been extensive and widespread, but don't you acknowledge the possibility that they're also at least in some part toxic? Is it probable that something this vast isn't having some negative effects?

I think we shouldn't run around screaming about how the sky is falling before we can even start to think through the impact of massive changes like these.

>I don't really want to use the term "intellectuals". The people-who-produce-culture. Our creative class.

Fine I don't give a shit. Whatever. Call them clercs if you want.

>This is kind of ignorant everything-is-okay-ism.

How so? Unless you think that everything was okay in the world throughout all of history? Again, everything is not okay and we should be working to make the world a better place & more just. That's not the same as running around like a chicken with its head cut off screaming about how the collapse of western civilization is right around the corner, and if denying that kind of absurd apocalyptic worldview makes me a pie-in-the-sky idealist, then whatever.

>> No.2546750
File: 278 KB, 432x432, transhuman.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2546750

>>2546657
Atheism is still increasing as far as I know. When people continue to educate themselves there will be more atheists or at least intelligent forms of religiosity. Income equality of this age is probably still very much preferable to that of any other time in history, apart from perhaps last year or something. On a large scale we have it pretty good. Internet is the largest and most glorious cultural catalyst to have been created since language and literacy. It will connect humanity to the point of becoming a single organism in some ways. Scientific progress is enormous. It is almost impossible to starve and/or be deprived of education in the first world (excluding America and such, perhaps).

We're doing very well as a species I would say. Apart from the whole environmental thing perhaps.

>> No.2546752

>>2546657
>Income inequality: heinous

Die in a fire, liberal shithead.

>> No.2546758

>>2546752

Relax. There are more important things to be angry about than the unchangeable opinions of a stranger.

>> No.2546754

>>2546745

My point is this:

Things are changing for the worse and we are drastically underestimating the changes' potential to cause problems.

>> No.2546765

We are indeed entering the theocratic age.

>> No.2546767

>>2546754
>Things are changing for the worse and we are drastically underestimating the changes' potential to cause problems.

In that case, I will reiterate: I think that's premature and Chicken-Little-ish. We don't know how things are changing, what will happen, what the impact of these things will be. We don't know if or to what extent these changes will be negative. Until we do think through what is going on, running around talking about how it's the end of the world is dumb.

>> No.2546769

OP has yet to justify his "Religion: coming back" statement.

It is absolutely untrue, but I'd like to see his reasoning.

>> No.2546774

>>2546769
He's probably thinking of the evangelical movement in the US which resulted in more vocal Christians.

>> No.2546781

>>2546774

also the internet backlash against atheism

>> No.2546787

There are no real signs of a dark age or an end of humanity scenario, in fact we have all of the marks of a civilization who will expand and eventually become relatively immortal as a species. The only thing I can see halting this is if a/the shadow government installs a world-wide dystopia, but that's all wild conspiracy.

>> No.2546795

>>2546781
there is no backlash against atheism, there is a backlash against "new atheism", you don't have to be religious to see how dumb it is.

>> No.2546796

>>2546795
I'm a little out of touch. What is considered "new atheism"? Hitchens? Or that post-Hitchens circle-jerking rage comic type that thinks being an atheist alone is a reason to feel superior to somebody?

>> No.2546797

>>2546795
what do you mean by "new atheism"? do you proselytizing athiesm?

>> No.2546803

>>2546797
edit: "do you mean..."

>> No.2546807

>>2546797
atheism with a totally rad attitude. "all religion is harmful, terrible, and stupid, and all religious people are idiots, and i need to loudly tell them this" atheism. edgy teen atheism.

>> No.2546808

>>2546796
>>2546797
yes, pretty much. most people who read dawkins also jump to the wrong conclusions, i dont particularly like dawkins, but he clearly sets out that he is talking about a personal god, people tend to see personal god as representing all religion and all kinds of hurrdurr follows.

>> No.2546815

Humanity was always retarded; nothing new here.

>> No.2546817

http://www.historicalinsights.com/dave/hegel.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muqaddimah

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_five_regimes

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Spengler

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arnold_J._Toynbee

>> No.2547481
File: 145 KB, 400x300, ResurrectDead_web.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2547481

>>2546817
toynbee's still big in philadelphia

>> No.2547571
File: 40 KB, 500x312, 2nbsvva.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2547571

>>2546657
If history remembers YOU, OP it will remember that you lived in the time of Sagan, Hawking, degrasse Tyson and Kurzweil. The time at which humanity seemed lost...a time before contact with the vast intelligence of the cosmos had been made; when darkness seemed certain.

A still more glorious dawn awaits:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc

>> No.2547599

We live in the beginning of the information age, and you think it is the beginning of a new 'dark age'. Have you been reading those continental philosophers again? This sounds like something that only they could get wrong.

>> No.2547601

>>2547571
Sagan will be remembered as a minor thinker, the same way we regard a 16th century Reformation cleric. Hawking will be more of an Eli Whitney. Degrasse-Tyson won't be remembered at all. Kurzweil will be remembered the same as Nostradamus, and he'll probably get the same treatment on the History Channel 300 years from now.

>> No.2547817

>>2547601

>Sagan will be remembered as a minor thinker, the same way we regard a 16th century Reformation cleric. Hawking will be more of an Eli Whitney. Degrasse-Tyson won't be remembered at all. Kurzweil will be remembered the same as Nostradamus, and he'll probably get the same treatment on the History Channel 300 years from now.

1. You obviously haven't read any of RK's work because he is nothing like Nostradamus - some of his shit has already went from science fiction to science face; AI for example (Age of Intelligent Machines)

Everyone I listed will be remembered closer to the way we remember Newton, Roentgen, Tesla etc than the way you described. And FUCK YOU! NDT is a badass.

>> No.2547824

>>2547817

are you fucking serious?

Only Hawking has made a major contribution to science.

>> No.2547825

>>2547599

at best we're living at the -end- of the "information age"

we're entering the "saturation age", where house niggas to mega-corporate fag bois rake in bank simply by backing the cultural agenda of their massas

and we just cotton-pickin' negroes, turned against one-another by the machinations of our "brothas" & "sistas", whipped to death if we step outta the field they've trapped us een

yuh feil me duko?

>> No.2547829

everyone since the beginning of time has always believed they are living in the end of times and that the generation previous to them were the good old days. you really can't get any more cliche than thinking that we're entering a dark age.

inb4 sometimes they're right!!

>> No.2547834

OP confirmed for reddit athiest.

>> No.2547847

Religion is in decline. New Atheists are challenging theism directly, and they are only opposed by the usual suspects and leftist SomethingAwful types who are completely irrelevant except in some tiny corners of the internet.

>> No.2547858

>>2546797
>what do you mean by "new atheism"? do you proselytizing athiesm?

Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and the like.

>> No.2547868

>implying there weren't always pseudo-intellectuals
Just as bad as assuming that everyone use to read before television existed.

>> No.2547873

>>2547858
I believe Dawkins recently admitted to being agnostic

>> No.2547895

Religion "coming back" is just a reactionary tantrum. Those always happen with any large-scale societal change and they never mean nothing.

>> No.2547905

>>2547873
Dawkins didn't change his mind, as you seem to want to imply. Dawkins was always agnostic in the sense that he is not 100% certain. He mentioned this in The God Delusion years ago.

>> No.2547906

>>2546797
Commonly used term, ffs. Google stuff before asking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_atheism

>> No.2547915

>>2546708
>more people are smarter than at any other point in history.

Perhaps, but the genotypic IQ is falling due to dysgenetic effects i.e. IQ correlates negatively with number of children one will get.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysgenics

>> No.2547919

>>2547825
Ebooks are still growing. When we finally get changed the copyright laws, there will be a true information age. Google Books and others will scan every book ever written and put it out for free. Academic journals will be open access. That is the information age we are moving towards. It will come in our life time.

>> No.2547921

Just look at crime, income, happiness and life expectancy statistics from various countries census'

>> No.2547929

>>2547921
Those are pretty much all going in the right direction.

For violence, see Pinker's new book:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Better_Angels_of_Our_Nature

For all kinds of health stuff, see lectures by: http://www.ted.com/speakers/hans_rosling.html

>> No.2547944

>>2547929
>Those are pretty much all going in the right direction
yeah, a positive direction

>> No.2547974

Because people like you, OP, are intelligent enough to perceive things how they truly are, and of them some will use their intelligence to steer humanity towards a positive future. To help them, they have the sum of human knowledge available at the click of a button, as well as all the amazing new technology constantly coming out- personally, I think we're gonna be okay. :)

>> No.2549684
File: 480 KB, 1920x1080, 1328220079554.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2549684

What's worse, krautrock influences in modern rock are hamfisted at best. I mean, what the fuck do The Horrors think they're doing.

>> No.2549711

lol @ these idiot socialists still whining about "income inequality"

>> No.2549712
File: 22 KB, 400x424, sad-obama.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2549712

>>2549684

>mfw I realized that the intro to "Cherub Rock" was a ripoff of "Hallogallo"

>> No.2549727

>>2547847
You try that "new atheism" shit on 4chan, and you'll be told to fuck off.

>>2547915
No, IQ is falling because we are filling our countries with shitskins.
Of course liberals see these things as good.

>> No.2549735

>>2549727
Lol yes some stormfag neo-fascists will tell New Atheists to fuck off. How about anyone with any relevancy or legitimacy?

>> No.2549765

>>2547929
>advises us to read a book by a jewish leftist which radically ignores reality

Crime in the usa is still triple what it was in the early 60's.

this other guy looks to be some sort of leftist.

>> No.2549775

>>2549765
You've already established that you don't care what his arguments are because you are an anti-semite, so what does it matter?

Nice job maintaining your status as an intellectual cripple, btw.

>> No.2549776

>>2546750

>>>Income equality of this age is probably still very much preferable to that of any other time in history

No, this is just simply wrong. The theatre in Elizabethan England was much more accessible to the poorest classes than it is now. You always have to consider costs of living in tandem with income, otherwise you get a lot of meaningless numbers.

The price of everything is rising as income stagnates or declines. It's just not just.

>> No.2549789

>>2549776
And guess what, taxes are higher then ever.
The welfare state destroys any reason to work for the dumb/lazy/poor
non-whites are imported by the millions driving down wages, massive regulatory and taxation burdens are placed on businesses, forcing them overseas.

Also you are literally lying anyways, all these people can afford a ticket to go see a play or a movie.

Income equality is a meaningless socialist metric, mainly used by eurosocialists/leftists so they can pretend USA isn't the best country in the world.

>>2549775
A quick glance at crime statistics/how the world works shows his claims are dogshit. I glanced at the names of his other books, things like "the blank slate", obviously he has a political agenda since he contradicts modern science with his claims.

>> No.2549797

How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning?

INTERNET HAS KILLED THE SUPRASENSIBLE WORLD; WE ARE MOVING FURTHER AWAY FROM THE ESSENCE OF THE BEING!

>> No.2549806

>>2549789

Crime may be going up in your shitty country, but it's declined significantly in mine.

>> No.2549811

>>2549806
which is your country? And there are reasons it goes down, not some magical "civilizing factor"

>> No.2549820

>>2549811

If I didn't think you were fishing for some ridiculous ad hominem attack, I would answer your question.

>> No.2549823

>>2549820
u scurred

>> No.2549829

>>2549823

I'd rather fap than engage you in conversation, bye!

>> No.2549830

>>2549829
Enjoy your early death + hormone problems.