#modern thought

In Western societies, straight lines are ubiquitous. We see them everywhere, even when they do not really exist. Indeed the straight line has emerged as a virtual icon of modernity, an index of the triumph of rational, purposeful design over the vicissitudes of the natural world. The relentlessly dichotomizing dialectic of modern thought has, at one time or another, associated straightness with mind as against matter, with rational thought as against sensory perception, with intellect as against intuition, with science as against traditional knowledge, with male as against female, with civilization as against primitiveness, and - on the most general level - with culture as against nature. It is not difficult to find examples of every one of these associations.

The final legacy of materialism is coercive utopianism. Although the belief that all thought and behavior are predetermined by material causes would seem to deny the power of human beings to reshape their world, materialism in fact inspired a fierce strain of coercive utopianism. Claiming either that they were merely the servants of the forces of materialism–or with Nietzsche, that they could overcome materialism by a sheer act of will–materialist reformers tried to create secular utopias in Russia and Germany. In America, meanwhile, significant parts of the cultural elite began to believe that we could engineer the perfect society through social science and planning. ...𝗶𝗳 𝗽𝗲𝗼𝗽𝗹𝗲 𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗮𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗻𝘃𝗶𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗯𝗶𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝗶𝗰𝗮𝗹 𝗻𝗲𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗴𝗼𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗻𝗼 𝗹𝗼𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗿 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗮𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗲𝗺𝗽𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗿𝗲𝗽𝗹𝗮𝗰𝗲𝘀 𝗽𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗵𝗼𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝘀𝗼𝗰𝗶𝗮𝗹 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘁𝗿𝗼𝗹. 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗽𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗿𝗼𝗻𝗴 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗶𝗰𝗲, 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝘆 𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗮𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗰𝗵𝗼𝗶𝗰𝗲. C.S. Lewis painted a grim portrait of this kind of despotism in his novel That Hideous Strength. There the spirit of modern social science becomes incarnate in something called the National Institute of Coordinated Experiments—NICE, for short. Of course, there is nothing nice about NICE; its social scientists are exactly the type of technocrats that Lewis feared. In the name of science and humanity, they claimed the right to remake society without bothering to obtain its consent. While we are a long way off from the nightmare vision depicted by Lewis in That Hideous Strength, we certainly should be able to understand some of what he is getting at. Public policy decisions in America today are made increasingly by the type of technocrats that Lewis talked about, as legislators have transferred much of their authority to a vast array of independent regulatory agencies staffed by unelected experts.Lewis did not dispute that technocrats have plenty of knowledge that may be necessary for good public policy. But it is not sufficient. Political problems are preeminently moral problems, according to Lewis, and technocrats are no better equipped than any other citizen to function as moralists.

L'existentialisme, au moins dans sa version française, est d'abord un abandon des embarras de la philosophie moderne pour l'engagement sans réserve dans l'action. [...] Quand il commença à devenir clair à l'homme moderne qu'il vivait à présent dans un monde où sa conscience et sa tradition n'étaient même pas capables de poser des questions adéquates, significatives [...] l'action, avec ce qu'elle implique et ce à quoi elle oblige, son être-engagée, semblait offrir l'espoir, non de résoudre les problèmes, mais de rendre possible l'art de vivre avec eux sans devenir, selon l'expression de Sartre, un salaud, un hypocrite.

This entire heritage of thinking, grounded in the sentence "An agent does not move except out of intention for and end," is where the most pervasive human error lies, compounded by two or more centuries of the illusion of unconditional scientific understanding. This error is also the most fragilizing one."

We lead inner lives that are deeply at odd with our external existence,

This bit from Breakfast of Champions has been fucking with my head lately.