Common sense anti-intellectualism and whatnot.

[Haruspex]

Right, this may sound weird, but I had this 'revelation' right after finishing an awesome game - Utawarerumono. The one I finished was the PSP version, even though I have the PC version as well, so there was no pr0n for me, bah...

Anyhow, the deal is that while the story was great, it was full of the usual messages: 'Know your limits humans! Don't be playing God!' and so on and so forth. Right, so went through all the stuff I can remember, books, anime, games, etc., and I found that most of the stuff I've come across is extremely anti-science, anti-intellectual, anti-detached and abstract thinking and so on. One only has to look at the stereotypical scientist in modern media: a cowardly bastard, often sadistic or simply a sociopath. Not only that but the whole 'There are certain things that are better left alone.' or thinking of Persona 3, the 'Good Scientist' archetype who, exhausting his or her last powers temporarily halts the advance of whatever great evil that science has invoked. Or the evil scientists who are punished for their aspirations and grand aims. Or hell, if you want some proper literature, just take a look at Frankenstein which is, effectively, a book dedicated to how forbidden knowledge rapes the life, mates, family and bride of poor Victor.

Now, I had to ask myself, are we ******* retards? It certainly seems that way. Forbidden knowledge? I am using a very basic sort of thinking when it comes to knowledge. Knowing things can easily boost one's capacity and even if it is the kind of knowledge that doesn't, well, there is absolutely no reason to say, 'Oh, by the way, you shouldn't actually know this, because it's bad for you.' **** that. We're in the 21st century and we're still battling with the common sense of the common man, the sort of thinking that is simply full of presumptions, unsupported premises and whatnot. So, here we are with our morality, our deities, our naturalism or whatever else, but we supposedly value knowledge. If asked, hardly anyone would say that he or she would like to be ignorant and simply wrong as to actual facts. If there's a rapist 'round the corner, hungry for some barebacking than I want to know what the hell to do, similarly to when there's heart and kidney failure 'round the corner.

Mention biological immortality and you'll find yourself in the middle of a storm of strong sentiments opposed to it. 'It is pointless. Life would be boring. I don't care.' I have had several dudes tell me that they're not afraid of death, deteriorating health and all the nasty **** that comes with aging. Yeah, ******* right. Most people aren't scared of it in their late teens and early twenties because it is so damn far away, but it will probably come. I even had a guy tell me that it would lead to overpopulation if everyone was immortal. The thought that maybe we could sort breeding out and live, rather than breed like ******* rabbits and die shortly after was not even entertained for a bleeding second, no.

I cannot hide my hatred of this youthful mystery romanticism or whatever you wish to call it. Death is mysterious, so is life, birth and whatnot... in literature. It is these ridiculously naive people who try to transpose the stuff they read in books into the real world. The real world, however, does not work that way. It is ora et labora currently in the real world, and it is **** and unpleasant. People die of illnesses, they die in accidents, in war. People are born disfigured, fragile, still. In this beautiful ******* world we have no other problem but forbidden knowledge, right? Because if we stick an ear on a rat, we desecrate the beatiful nature that is actually behind all the **** we're stricken with.
Human society seems like a ridiculous huge larp session with most of the participants pretending just for the fun.

Rant over. Please share your thoughts regarding the points raised in this text wall of hatred. Oh yeah, the rant was also inspired by these Shared Planet folks who have nothing better to do but ***** about how people are not willing to pay twice the price for Fair Trade rubbish, oh the dirty capitalist bastards, oh. One of them even suggested to my friend that we should abolish laws and decide matters through luck. Like when there's a dispute as to who own a house it should be decided by a coin toss. Why not march straight back into the ocean?

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237809

Your rant reminded me of this article for some reason.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

It's commonly claimed that there are only seven stories in the world, perhaps most famously by Christopher Booker, although my dad was saying it years and years before Booker published The Seven Basic Plots: Why We Tell Stories in 2005.

I think that the "leave well alone" motif is just one of these story archetypes. It's in the Bible story of the forbidden fruit and there are probably earlier prototypes. I suppose this, and the other six archetypes (it might be fun to try to work out what they are), were all used as methods of instruction by early man. These stories were probably crucial to our social development. We don't need them anymore, but they endure because they make damn good stories!

Why do some people take the "leave well alone" warning seriously? I think there are two reasons. One is just plain fear of the unknown, which is probably hard-wired in all of us to some extent. How we deal with that fear differs from person to person. People like you and me deal with it by learning more, which usually allays our fears. Unfortunately, many people don't have the inclination to learn more, and just go with their gut reaction.

The other reason is the same reason people still feel they need religion. There are those who want to control and those who are happy to be controlled. The reason science is cast in the role of the forbidden fruit is because science is perceived as the enemy of religion, and this is entirely understandable.

It's a tired example, but those who told Copernicus to "leave well alone" did so because they wanted people to accept the biblical dogma rather than think for themselves, because it's harder to control people who make up their own minds. They were quite justified in being afraid, because no-one, not even most Christians, looks to the Bible anymore to understand how the solar system works, they look to science. Religion has been forced to relinquish more and more of its ground to science. Those who still say we should "leave well alone" are just trying to arrest this inevitable process.

Actually, these two reasons aren't really separate at all, because even if they're not religious, those who have no inclination to learn more for themselves have to rely on some authority to tell them what to believe, whether that's religious institutions, the media or whatever.

Basically, it comes down to the same thing that causes most of the world's problems: willful ignorance.

 

[Tsuyoiko]

http://www.newsweek.com/id/237809
Your rant reminded me of this article for some reason.

From the article:

You know what we're not doing? We're not thinking. We're processing. There's a difference.

We're putting our brains into neutral, and revving the engine. We're digitally dithering, clicking on links and swimming through a torrent of useless garbage being thrown at us by idiots and self-promoters, pundits and PR flacks and marketing people.

I don't think this is true at all. Sure, it's true of the people who don't think anyway, the people who use Facebook just to send hearts to everyone on their contact list. For those people, digital devices are just another way of not thinking.

But I don't think intellectuals are just processing. As Derfel knows, I resisted joining Facebook for quite a while. This was my own case of "fear of the unknown". I listened to what people said it was about and thought "that's not for me", because I have no interest in getting in touch with school friends. Then I learnt more and found that actually, you can use Facebook to find articles and join groups to meet people with similar interests, and so I changed my mind.

When our recent election was announced I was undecided as to how to vote. I joined Facebook groups, followed the BBC election coverage, read all the manifestos, took quizzes and made up my mind. It's very unlikely I could have made such an informed decision without access to the internet. If you process information and it leads to a decision that affects your principles and your actions, that has to be real "thinking", doesn't it?

 

[Putrefaction]

I use the internet to:

- Come here
- Access medical facts
- Talk to friends....mostly about medical facts
- Some "man stuff"
- Facebook once to twice a day
- Check school emails

So basically, 90% of my internet time deals directly with expanding my knowledge. The rest of the 10% is rotting my brain.

 

[Emoni]

I've always found that often common sense translates to "this is my opinion of how something should be, and feel that everyone should believe the same way and never DARE question it." My version of common sense is a bit different than that though... I'd say it is closer to the train of thought that would be along the lines of, "Every source of evidence supports this/a concept, therefore it is very likely accurate despite what you think."

Enjoyable rant.

 

[Emoni]

I use the internet to:
- Come here
- Access medical facts
- Talk to friends....mostly about medical facts
- Some "man stuff"
- Facebook once to twice a day
- Check school emails
So basically, 90% of my internet time deals directly with expanding my knowledge. The rest of the 10% is rotting my brain.

I assume the 10% is the "man stuff?"

 

[Putrefaction]

man stuff, facebook, basically yeah haha,