Humans, having the faculties of reason, have over the course of our existence as a race furthered our knowledge of and, hence, our ability to manipulate nature, the Universe. We employ reason to develop technologies which aid in our survival, primarily (which is our primary purpose - the only inherent inborn purpose we have), and also aid and allow for the development of our own unique, individual, arbitrarily chosen purpose.
Even the most primitive jungle-bound tribes employ technology. These 'savages' reap the rewards of the capacity for reason their forefathers implemented ages ago when they developed the now primitive (in context with the 21st Century's Western civilization's high degree of sophistication) technology of spears, loin-cloths and thatched huts.
Many argue the traditional relevance of their culture and subsequent lifestyle and their 'right' to retain their primitive heritage, though it seems to only serve the status quo and an unwillingness to adapt to changing circumstances - i.e. changing realities.
When humans apply reason to a particular question they have about nature they can learn, i.e. increase their knowledge, new things about the way the Universe works, both micro- and macrocosmically. The more knowledge we have about the Universe, the more we are able to manipulate aspects thereof to serve our own purposes. This is how we develop technology.
As we implement new technologies, our lives too change as we are able to substitute one way of doing something for another via the implementation of said technology or are able to do things we weren't previously able to do at all in the first place.
This changes our situation in the world, it changes, morphs our circumstances and, thus we are in a situation where we have to adapt, or attempt to adapt.
Adaptation explains the do or die, the sink or swim aspects of reality. Adaptation consists of a system responding in the most preferential way for its own system as stimuli from res extensa are perceived within the sensory and conceptual parts of the system.
It is ultimately the responsibility of an individual to respond in the optimal way for oneself to external stimuli (changes in circumstances). Oftentimes, individuals do not have the requisite variety which comes with sufficient knowledge of a situation and the available knowledge surrounding its comprising parts to make a proper decision in terms of the long-term consequences.
Culture is a transient thing and changes as necessary to fit the changing times. As we employ our reason to increase our knowledge and then use this new knowledge (integrated with our previously gained knowledge) to create technology with which to make certain tasks easier or to allow us to perform erstwhile undoable tasks. This increase in our abilities leads to a new situation either subtle or extreme. Now we have altered our situation and must adapt to our new state of affairs.
What happens if we don't? Refusing to adapt to new realities implies an arbitrary refusal to perceive and conceive of reality as it is. This denial leads to the inconsistencies on par with trying to insert a square peg in a round hole. Either one can adapt as necessary to changes in reality and / or one can (within the reality of the situation) attempt through further reason to manipulate the reality to a way in which one wants it.
It must be noted that force / coercion are not viable options in terms of this second option (that of changing the circumstances to fit your preferred mode of being). Bear too in mind that this second alternative still requires varying degrees of adaptation to new circumstances.
Too often though, those who would prefer to keep circumstances at a status quo level disregard reason (and its implications of individual freedom and the respect subsequent thereof) in their attempts at reversion to preview circumstances.
It must be here said that the faculty of reason is what allows us to best deal with reality as it is, hence failure to apply reason to our situation as it is in reality leads inevitably to an inability to properly deal with situations in which we find ourselves. Our survival depends upon our application of reason.
We, of course, tend to employ greater and lesser degrees of reason in our quotidian lives, but the difficulty stems from prevalent mis-reasoned fundamental philosophical basics. What I am referring to here is the lifelong programming / conditioning process we go through.
As we enter this world tabula rasa in terms of concepts (discounting possibly inborn instinctual / response mechanisms) we are quickly bombarded with all manner of new sensations and subsequent perceptions upon which we, via our faculty of categorical perception, develop and integrate concepts to allow for an understanding, nascent though it may be.
With the development of linguistic capabilities our ability to grasp increasingly more sophisticated concepts grows and we are thus able to both receive concepts as well as clarify to others what our remaining questions are. Those questions being the knowledge gaps existing in our understanding of that which we perceive and the subsequent abstractions thereof.
The problem thus arises that we are at first depend upon others for our information (or rather, meta-information). The cause of the problem is not the dependence itself necessarily, but rather the reality that those upon whom we are dependent tend to have their own irrational understandings which they pass on to us.
Without necessarily malicious intent, our elders pass on faulty concepts and poor critical thinking habits which we habitualize and become to employ in a conditioned sense. This is why all mystical traditions first require deprogramming of the individual in order to rediscover the ability to perceive and conceptualize aspects of reality which are not 'visible' post normal Western lifelong conditioning. It should be noted more explicitly here that the majority of this conditioning occurs, more or less consciously (on the part of the 'elders'), early in life and become more rigid as one ages.
When culture is adhered to merely by virtue of tradition without regard to emerging realities then the fact that an irrational refusal to allow culture to modify or be modified will logically become obsolete as it does not conform to reality and thus hinders individuals involved in said culture from adapting to the new reality leading to a lack of proper / correct responses. This lack of correct response will inextricably lead, sooner or later, to difficulty in overall survival.
According to humans being rational, reasoning creatures, culture is an implement to be employed, updated and discarded as necessary to best allow for adaptation to changing circumstances. Toleration of emotionality dictating what we modify, or how or if we modify our culture, will inevitably disallow us from properly responding to changing realities because it is reason which enables us to know how to appropriately modify - via adaptation; correct responses - our culture.
Subcultures arise due to the fact that all societies with their cultures are comprised of individuals and individuals each have their own unique complexes of reason - i.e. differing degrees of the ability to correctly apply reason as well as deciding upon different things to apply reason to. With this being the case, it follows that certain individuals will develop differing concepts as to how or it a present culture should change.
This may be due to a better or worse grasp and application of reason or to the willingness to employ reason over emotionality or not.
As humans increase their knowledge of the Universe, i.e. the 'world we live in', it is inevitable that we will apply this knowledge to developing new ways of doing things and new implements to help us do them. These new implements we classify as technology. Knowledge and subsequent technology leads to changing realities and hence to the necessity for modified culture. When new technology is denied on the grounds of culture then we come to the aforementioned cundundrum, that is an irrational response system to the objective reality we find ourselves in.
If our new knowledge and subsequent technology abides by reason, and is acquired by way of reason, then a refusal to accept it is irrational.
Culture, like religions, which are 'designed' to disallow its adherents from updating it is response to changing realities are inherently 'built' to cause the overall downfall of its adherents. Abiding by a dogmatic, faith-based approach to reality will inevitably lead to this downfall because it refuses to accept changing realities and does not apply reason to understanding objective reality.
Faith insinuates the negation of reason for the purpose of understanding reality regardless of whether some of its claims turn out to be correct or not. Failure to apply reason to understanding reality is a set up for failing to respond to reality itself properly. 'Properly' in terms of the context of survival of any individual.
Primitive and developed cultures alike lose or decrease their ability to survive in a competitive world made of individuals (all out to survive, at least long enough to reproduce) when they arbitrarily decide not to do what it takes to adapt and respond accordingly to new realities. It is not the fault of those who do adapt and apply reason to acquiring new and more accurate knowledge of objective reality and implementing said knowledge as technology that other individuals / groups of individuals do not.
Those who do not adapt are not the responsibility of those who do.
No comments:
Post a Comment