"he articulated how the very idea of human progress ends up sucking out all meaning from the marrow of life"
Forgive me for thinking there was never any marrow in life to suck out in the first place. Religion, spirituality, mysticism, mythology, "enchantment" -- all developed primarily as a way to keep societies and civilizations orderly …
"he articulated how the very idea of human progress ends up sucking out all meaning from the marrow of life"
Forgive me for thinking there was never any marrow in life to suck out in the first place. Religion, spirituality, mysticism, mythology, "enchantment" -- all developed primarily as a way to keep societies and civilizations orderly and cohesive in a low-information, high-scarcity world. (I want to learn more about Julian Jaynes' theory of the bicameral mind, but based on what I do know it seems a very plausible hypothesis for the origins of spirituality and the idea of enchantment.) As humanity became better at more accurately observing and determining the laws of nature and how the universe works, and as poverty and material suffering declined, the utility of religion (using the term in its broadest sense) also declined -- I have to imagine it's harder to hold a spiritual/mystical worldview when the scientific method finds overwhelming evidence against its factual claims, and technological progress was (at least at first) rendering the need for paradise in the afterlife obsolete. It's hard not to conclude that there was never any "there" there to begin with.
This essay makes good points about smugness and the dangers of dismissing and ignoring the more ego-crippling aspects of life, but the people who truly value science and rationality understand full well that complete certainty about "ultimate ends" or just about anything is impossible, that as full an understanding of the universe as is possible must necessarily involve understanding and accepting that which is ego-crippling, that rationalist modes of inquiry and progress invoke enchantment instead of "sucking out all meaning from the marrow of life," and that the meaninglessness of death does not mean life is devalued as well (Michael Shermer has done a great job articulating this). If anything, science (or "scientism," if one really wants to go there) is not necessarily what leads to the smugness and banality so deplored here -- in fact, quite the opposite. Meanwhile, it's very common to find expressions of spirituality, whether from traditional religion or more New Age-y practices, to be teeming with their own kind of smugness and certainty, with anything indicating otherwise being nothing more than throat-clearing misdirection. Smugness, the illusion of certainty, the "safety blanket" -- these are more a result of universal human nature than specifically a byproduct of Kantian/Dawkinsian rationality.
"he articulated how the very idea of human progress ends up sucking out all meaning from the marrow of life"
Forgive me for thinking there was never any marrow in life to suck out in the first place. Religion, spirituality, mysticism, mythology, "enchantment" -- all developed primarily as a way to keep societies and civilizations orderly and cohesive in a low-information, high-scarcity world. (I want to learn more about Julian Jaynes' theory of the bicameral mind, but based on what I do know it seems a very plausible hypothesis for the origins of spirituality and the idea of enchantment.) As humanity became better at more accurately observing and determining the laws of nature and how the universe works, and as poverty and material suffering declined, the utility of religion (using the term in its broadest sense) also declined -- I have to imagine it's harder to hold a spiritual/mystical worldview when the scientific method finds overwhelming evidence against its factual claims, and technological progress was (at least at first) rendering the need for paradise in the afterlife obsolete. It's hard not to conclude that there was never any "there" there to begin with.
This essay makes good points about smugness and the dangers of dismissing and ignoring the more ego-crippling aspects of life, but the people who truly value science and rationality understand full well that complete certainty about "ultimate ends" or just about anything is impossible, that as full an understanding of the universe as is possible must necessarily involve understanding and accepting that which is ego-crippling, that rationalist modes of inquiry and progress invoke enchantment instead of "sucking out all meaning from the marrow of life," and that the meaninglessness of death does not mean life is devalued as well (Michael Shermer has done a great job articulating this). If anything, science (or "scientism," if one really wants to go there) is not necessarily what leads to the smugness and banality so deplored here -- in fact, quite the opposite. Meanwhile, it's very common to find expressions of spirituality, whether from traditional religion or more New Age-y practices, to be teeming with their own kind of smugness and certainty, with anything indicating otherwise being nothing more than throat-clearing misdirection. Smugness, the illusion of certainty, the "safety blanket" -- these are more a result of universal human nature than specifically a byproduct of Kantian/Dawkinsian rationality.
The essay is, I think, mostly a cry against smugness. It’s not obscurantist/mystical in intent.