Looking back at what I wrote when answering the questions for theme two, I perceive that my answers backfired at forming a whole and explaining the general concepts of the two texts. After the lecture and the seminar, I feel that I have a more comprehensive picture of the concepts. This is both due to the historical context that was provided, but also my increased understanding of the societal critique that were put forward by the authors.
During pre-modern time, knowledge was about understanding Plato and Aristotle. The focus was not seeking new answers, but rather to reinterpret these old thoughts. During the 17th century there was a shift in how knowledge was perceived, from reading books to observing our surroundings. The discoveries of Newton, Galileo and Copernicus and other pioneers such as Boyle, Pascal and Hooke are examples of the outcome. The perception of human as mechanisms for repeating, changed. Humans are not only able to develop and change science, but also the society. This is the epistemological backdrop to the French revolution.
The world kept progressing, and after a few years, the negative consequences of growth appeared. The aftermath of the first world war, followed by the crash of the New York stock exchange resulted in the failure of the promise of enlightenment. For anyone interested in these questions I can recommend the book ”Moral consequences of economic growth” by Benjamin Friedman. In the book he argues if progress continues indefinitely, or if there is a limit. If the progress is not inevitable, what does our civilization have to do to achieve it?
Regarding the Adorno and Horkheimer text, which criticizes the cultural industry in the U.S, I wish that I in a clearer manner, had described the relationship between nominalism, enlightenment and mythology. A&H have a negative view of nominalism, as categorization according to them results in societal oppression. When enlightenment showed through science that human interference did not have any impact on the outcome of events, it ultimately showed us that our actions do not matter, which leads to my role in the universe being peripheral. When I am thinking about the world, I am just reproducing it. This means that we are as trapped in enlightenment as we were in mythology. We cannot change society; we can just repeat it. This results in passivity and conformity, and nominalism prevents the formation of an antithesis to this state. Even though enlightenment came as a contradiction to myth, it is actually reproducing mythological examples. Instead of using culture to reproduce societal structures we need to revive the concept, understand that there are concepts and question the big picture, by looking at the smaller components and pay attention to details.
Regarding the Benjamin text, I could have emphasised the role of historical materialism in question one. In question two I learned during the week that the revolutionary potentials according to Marx, does not equal democratic potentials. Regarding the question about historical perception, I did not fully understand when I read the text that this argument could undermine the Nazi propaganda that German art were superior to other art, giving the text a greater societal value.
Below are some examples of how the ideas can be applied to a modern context:
During pre-modern time, knowledge was about understanding Plato and Aristotle. The focus was not seeking new answers, but rather to reinterpret these old thoughts. During the 17th century there was a shift in how knowledge was perceived, from reading books to observing our surroundings. The discoveries of Newton, Galileo and Copernicus and other pioneers such as Boyle, Pascal and Hooke are examples of the outcome. The perception of human as mechanisms for repeating, changed. Humans are not only able to develop and change science, but also the society. This is the epistemological backdrop to the French revolution.
The world kept progressing, and after a few years, the negative consequences of growth appeared. The aftermath of the first world war, followed by the crash of the New York stock exchange resulted in the failure of the promise of enlightenment. For anyone interested in these questions I can recommend the book ”Moral consequences of economic growth” by Benjamin Friedman. In the book he argues if progress continues indefinitely, or if there is a limit. If the progress is not inevitable, what does our civilization have to do to achieve it?
Regarding the Adorno and Horkheimer text, which criticizes the cultural industry in the U.S, I wish that I in a clearer manner, had described the relationship between nominalism, enlightenment and mythology. A&H have a negative view of nominalism, as categorization according to them results in societal oppression. When enlightenment showed through science that human interference did not have any impact on the outcome of events, it ultimately showed us that our actions do not matter, which leads to my role in the universe being peripheral. When I am thinking about the world, I am just reproducing it. This means that we are as trapped in enlightenment as we were in mythology. We cannot change society; we can just repeat it. This results in passivity and conformity, and nominalism prevents the formation of an antithesis to this state. Even though enlightenment came as a contradiction to myth, it is actually reproducing mythological examples. Instead of using culture to reproduce societal structures we need to revive the concept, understand that there are concepts and question the big picture, by looking at the smaller components and pay attention to details.
Regarding the Benjamin text, I could have emphasised the role of historical materialism in question one. In question two I learned during the week that the revolutionary potentials according to Marx, does not equal democratic potentials. Regarding the question about historical perception, I did not fully understand when I read the text that this argument could undermine the Nazi propaganda that German art were superior to other art, giving the text a greater societal value.
Below are some examples of how the ideas can be applied to a modern context:
- A lot of things that are bad for the society can be backed up with facts deriving from research, however it does not mean that it should be considered the right way forward. We need to be critical.
- The dialect between freedom and oppression is current in many questions regarding media technology.
- If substructures changes the superstructure, developing technological solutions can be a way of changing the society.
Hi,
SvaraRaderaThanks for the recommendation of the book, there is an article with the short summary related to the topic (in case if someone who will read your post decides to know more about it: http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/bfriedman/files/the_moral_consequences_of_economic_growth_0.pdf)
Firstly I wanted to strongly disagree with the statement that the society repeats itself, and enlightenment is not a solution but later I realized that this idea may have sense. For example, despite we have the unique opportunities to take Harvard classes on Coursera for free, majority (me as well) waste time on social media or watching video on Youtube. What means there is some percentage of people, so called life-changers who can use technology for self-improvement but all the rest are similar to that consumeristic American society described by A&H
Hi,
SvaraRaderaSeems like an interesting book recommendation. I believe limitless progress can be perceived as another myth that the society have constructed in order to motivate people. After all, it has been shown that progress also causes negative side effects, such as pollution, destruction of rainforests, urbanisation (on the behalf of agriculture etc). It would be interesting to hear your thought of this, especially after having read the book.
I agree with you that modern, technological development can be a way of changing the superstructure, and in some ways I believe it already has. Looking at how sharing information, news and knowledge has been democratised and available for everyone instead of only having an elite of journalists or intellectuals provide us with facts they consider important.
I think your reflection on perception of knowledge is quite interesting. And while I agree, that before the Enlightenment people were only trying to reinterpret whatever knowledge was there, I think the point of Enlightenment was not that the perception of knowledge changed, but that for once, people were actually thinking themselves. To stay within the terminology of the topics, it is not that their way of perceiving knowledge per se changed, but that the people (read: not only aristocratic people) actually started to perceive it at all. And thus leading to the french revolution et cetera.
SvaraRaderaWhat I appreciated a lot with reading your text was your use of time therein. You have an invisible timeline when you write, it reads nicely mostly. There are some exceptions though. Introduction could have been better. You could have focused on your questions and how you misunderstood these at the end, in a reflection. I think the reflections added are solid and food for thought though. Theory is just one tool of many to make sense of the world we live in. It reconnects to knowledge which we discussed previously. The connection point with technology is also a good one to spin further on, and also when technology changes the substructure and not the superstructure? Overall, thanks for a nice read.
SvaraRaderaThank you for this reflection that was really nice to read. I like how you draw the line from theme 1 to the theme 2 and linked them through that together. I think that is it what this whole course is about: Being able to understand the historical background of knowledge and it’s meaning in the world of today. Thank you for the book recommendation. I consider taking a look at it, maybe even before the course is over.
SvaraRaderaYour three statements in the end are giving someone a lot of thoughts after reading the post. Especially the last one about the potential of changing the superstructure through developing technological solutions. I think too many people think that the new media and the changes in the last years are having only a bad influence on the society that we’ll have in the future. Not many see the potential influence that we might have on it just through shaping it and educating the society on how to use it reflected. The internet and immense use of digital technology has brought a singularity (Prensky, 2001, p. 1) with itself that might not be changeable anymore and taken back. We should think about how we can have the very best influence on the development of it.
Prensky, M. (2001). Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants Part 1. On the Horizon, 9 (5), pp. 1-6.
I think we can see patterns in the human way of living through history. The fact that we access information about our history is a way for us to avoid to make the same mistakes again.
SvaraRaderaIn general people think the access of information and all the new technology as a way to become a more democratic society. Though we don’t know where it will lead us to in the future. Can we process all this information in the right way and are we able to think critically to everything that is passing our minds?
With nominalism the idea was to liberate the human. Technology will probably change the substructure, but if it will be to the benefit of the human kind would be interesting to see.
You were worried about the lack of connections between the concepts in the earlier post, but in this reflection you really brought them together and put your thoughts in form of a ongoing story – thank you for that! Especially the final three "key points" about the ideas in context of a modern society where fascinating and the discussion could be continued there. I started thinking about the technological change (substructure) that has occurred and changed the superstructure. Or which ever way around we would now like to determine it, since it became clear during the seminar that those are actually somewhat a symbiosis, interacting in a constant circle. When we think about changing the society, the process always starts with the idea of it – the technological change could then be seen as a result/effect (not cause) of the change that has already happened in the minds (of technological geniuses at least). Fascinating concepts, really!
SvaraRadera