Would Neutral Language prevent Muses from falling Silent for ever?

Use this philosophy forum to discuss and debate general philosophy topics that don't fit into one of the other categories.

This forum is NOT for factual, informational or scientific questions about philosophy (e.g. "What year was Socrates born?"); such homework-help-style questions can be asked and answered on PhiloPedia: The Philosophy Wiki. If your question is not already answered on the appropriate PhiloPedia page, then see How to Request Content on PhiloPedia to see how to ask your informational question using the wiki.
Alias
Posts: 2306
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Would Neutral Language prevent Muses from falling Silent for ever?

Post by Alias » March 26th, 2018, 4:04 pm

Ivan wrote:
March 26th, 2018, 3:19 am
I do agree. However, those things are really big. And I do not think we have enough time to do that.
So the question is what is the minimum, that we could really do to settle it all down.
Turn over world governance, and all the weapons, and all the arbitration of all international conflict to the UN.

User avatar
Ivan
New Trial Member
Posts: 16
Joined: June 14th, 2017, 5:35 am

Re: Would Neutral Language prevent Muses from falling Silent for ever?

Post by Ivan » March 26th, 2018, 4:30 pm

I am afraid that page is already turned over. Alas :(

We seem to be carried by some centrifugal force, as if we all were objects, not subjects.
To be more specific, I really do not know what we all are doing in Syria. Those are 100% not ‘values’ that brought us there. Neither of us is able to explain this. Do we really care? Is it worth risking direct confrontation? We seem to have no idea what we are going to die for. That is weird.

Alias
Posts: 2306
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: Would Neutral Language prevent Muses from falling Silent for ever?

Post by Alias » March 26th, 2018, 6:31 pm

It's never been otherwise. Sometimes the lies are a little more persuasive, sometimes transparently stupid.
It's just, people used to take their own pawnhood for granted. Since they've started to question that - to challenge the legitimacy of their leaders and the plausibility of the leaders' agendas, thee has been even more bloodshed.
But there are lots more people, as well.

User avatar
Ivan
New Trial Member
Posts: 16
Joined: June 14th, 2017, 5:35 am

Re: Would Neutral Language prevent Muses from falling Silent for ever?

Post by Ivan » March 27th, 2018, 3:32 am

You are right, it may seem like there is nothing new in all this. However, I tend to think what we see know is a rapid transition from quantity to quality.
I think it was Yaneer Bar-Yam (mathematician) who was the first to predict this qualitative leap in the mid 90-s: https://www.systematics.org/files/ComplexityRising.pdf

He thought when a certain level of social complexity had been reached (individual complexity = group complexity), the whole societies would undergo unprecedented changes. Hierarchical structures would be supplanted by network-based. The latter would be more viable and adaptable to the ever-rising complexity of the ‘environment’.
Thus, he predicted the rise of social networks, media and many other things. What he could not foresee was in what extent this transition itself would be controllable at all. Or if the ‘networked’ societies would really be an adequate answer to the higher level of environmental complexity. Or, again, if those ‘networked’ societies would themselves be controllable in any way.

What I can see now is a kind of a chain reaction in this rise of complexity. Networks do not mitigate it in any way. Just the opposite: they make it much more unpredictable.
You may think of Russia as an ‘old-school’ vertical-based hierarchical society, but it would be a mistake. I really do not know why we still maintain this image (to be more ‘acceptable’ for Asian cultures?), but it is just the same here: quite a complex, mostly horizontal-based unity with numerous checks and balances. We do not have ideologies as such. The only ‘ideology’ we share with the whole modern world is postmodernism. And this latter is not compatible with our common conception of ideology.

So I do not think, that ‘It's never been otherwise’. You may see it for yourself, if you take into account all those latest discussions of the so-called ‘post-truth era’. I just tried to explain my vision of this qualitative leap. Though I still think it is becoming a matter of our survival…

Post Reply