Questioning Modernity

-->

An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding of Modern Civilization

{The material used here is from my close friends and as such I claim no originality for the thoughts below. I’ve merely attempted to give them a shape. My thanks to all those geniuses who had brought these issues to me}

“To hold a pen is to be at war.” – Voltaire

Riding high on the technological progress achieved in recent years, the power of modern sciences and arts which had taken the credit for the advancement, has become unquestionable. On the surface, the conquest of earth by humanity appears complete, and science had been the tool which was instrumental for this long-sought victory. Man is the indisputable ruler of the world and all the other animals exist strictly at his mercy. Or is he really?

Man of yore was supposed to be barbarian and he has descended from apes as per Charles Darwin. Modern civilization is the haven for happiness and science its promoter. We aren’t supposed to believe anything unless and until we receive evidence through rational means. And the result achieved thus is absolute truth until again, another person proves it untrue. Somewhere, something is amiss some feel. But, there is no place for faith in modern sciences, remember! All is believed only when proved through senses.

Indian Epics and histories are dubbed as “mythologies” (behold the (in)appropriateness of the word) precisely because they don’t fit into the ‘reality’ of westerners. But, the question is how they know that there are correct either. Now, I’m neither for blind adoration of Indian way nor blind accusation of Western. So far, they were questioning our system, I merely want to point that their credibility is also not beyond question.

First and foremost, I would like to bring it to one’s notice, that faith is the most inbuilt mechanism of human mind and almost all activities pursued by man are by virtue of his faith that they shall be accomplished successfully. Hence, contrary to what few would like us to believe, faith is the sign of a sound person and not superstitious ones. Doesn’t a scientist have faith in the proof of his own senses? Doesn’t a philosopher have faith in his abstractions? Faith is then the fundamental base of all human understanding and to say anything to the contrary is the worst superstition.

Reality to us has no meaning except through the perception of senses. When you are interacting with anything your concern is what your eyes can see, what your skin could feel, your nose smell and what your ears hear, the taste through mouth. These are what come to your mind and anything that’s not within the scope of these senses is a non-entity to you. Till recent past, man was unaware of ultra-violet rays (invisible to naked eye) and certain frequencies of sound inaudible to man but perceived by some animals. Now that they were discovered we’re aware of its existence but what about other entities which are still not within our reach. So much for our so-called rational knowledge!

Most of us are marvel at our discovery of the laws of nature (chemistry, physics etc). But, what is the law of nature as such for us? We are not acquainted with it by itself, but through its effects. Thus, what we actually know is only it’s relation with our senses and our comprehension ends then and there. What thoroughly amazes us and what we assume to be the consistency of these laws might then as well be the coincidence of our perception toward them and at bottom means that we see the relationship in quite the same way. The sameness then is not necessarily in the nature but might also be within ourselves. Thus it is we who impress ourselves in this way.

All the scientific research begins with the presumption that all could be translated into a mathematical model & build upon certain hypothesis. What if we question those hypotheses upon which giant calculations are based on? What if, Maths is not the adequate representation of all reality? What if these calculations tend to infinity wherein our limitations acquire predominance? We assume that an infinitesimally small part of a circle is a straight line (Calculus), but that isn’t so, just as a point is not a part of a line.

Winston Churchill once said “We shape our buildings, and afterwards our buildings shape us.” How true! We fall into the trap of stereotyping our concepts to fall into a pattern which causes error in judgment.

The discovery of truth is prevented more effectively, not by the false appearance things present and which mislead into error, not directly by weakness of the reasoning powers, but by preconceived opinion, by prejudice. And the recent recession is the proof that our error extend to economics as well. Almost uniformly none of those umpteen economists were able to predict it, although now everyone has an explanation for the occurrence. Alan Greenspan, the former Fed Reserve Chairman and a close associate of Ayn Rand (priestess & philosopher of capitalism) was a great ideologue of pure capitalism. After a lifetime of bold acclamation of capitalism and advocating a departure from mixed economy of US, he confessed as one who’s shocked by the vulnerability of his long held belief & ideal that markets didn’t function as he had expected them to all along. People don’t necessarily take rational decision and free-markets are not self-corrective after all.

But what about philosophers who’re after all the main drivers of civilization? The problem is that they haven’t been as objective in their pursuit of truth and most of their achievements are blurred by personal experiences. Schopenhauer’s pessimistic philosophy is directly connected to his unhappy beginnings and chiefly his bad relationship with his mother. Ayn Rand’s overtly strong advocacy of capitalism has much to do with her childhood in Soviet Russia where her father’s pharmacy shop was confiscated by decree of state. Nietzsche’s will-to-power is attempted to self-deceive his over soft and timid self into believing that he’s the overman. Spinoza’s tranquillity is a product of his life-long suffering which he however faced calmly.

My contention is that man experiences certain things and deceives himself into believing that the whole world consists of only those experiences which occurred to him. It mostly misses his intellect that others don’t necessarily feel the same emotions. To extrapolate his feelings to suit the world is the error from which even great philosophers are not exempted. Spinoza rightly said “I believe that, if a triangle could speak, it would say, in like manner, that God is eminently triangular, while a circle would say that the divine nature is eminently circular. Thus each would ascribe to God its own attributes, would assume itself to be like God, and look on everything else as ill-shaped.”

And then, we come at the crossroads of faith and reason, I’m not sure that I have a readymade answer. But I see however incompletely that modern society doesn’t provide all the answers. Then, what are we questioning? Reality? No. We are questioning only ourselves. I invite all those who’re having their opinions concerning this discussion to share it with me. If you’ve reached this point (which most won’t) I’m sure you would surely feel some strong emotion igniting some thought process. And that precisely is my aim.