As we all know, the scientific way of seeing the world has brought immeasurable benefits to all mankind ; so many benefits, in fact, that many decent people cannot bring themselves to see the world in any other way. They just know that the only realities are those which arrive to us through our physical senses. If a thing may be seen, touched, heard, tasted or smelt then it is real ; if not, then it is fantasy.
The principle that underlies this way of living is the very respectable m.k.s. system. The m.k.s. stands for metres, kilogrammes and seconds, which are the standard units of length, mass and duration – the very bedrock of good science.
Once upon a time, when people were generally better educated than they are today, it was understood that this way of seeing the world was intended to provide a very specialised form of knowledge – scientific knowledge. Such knowledge was never intended to provide a comprehensive understanding of the Universe and all the things in it. A scientist’s specialised way of understanding the world was no different, in principle, from a carpenter’s specialised way of seeing the world ; or a plumber’s, or a farmer’s, or a train-spotter’s.
But, with generally falling standards of education, a truly extraordinary state of affairs has arisen. It is now seriously proposed that, if a thing can be measured, weighed and timed, then it is real. And many people of a scientific disposition now say that, if a thing cannot be measured, weighed and timed, then it is illusory ; and they add that anyone who believes otherwise is either mad or evil.
Mr Gradgrind would have thoroughly approved of all this, of course – before his daughter, Louisa, through her sufferings and by God’s grace, came to his rescue. If he were alive today, he would be ashamed.
One of the sadnesses that arises out of today’s scientific outlook is that its more zealous believers are now quite incapable of seeing in any other way. For them, life has lost its meaning ; in place of life, they have mere existence. But there is hope, even yet ; for a few of them are asking, “Why is our civilisation in decline?” In decline at the very time we should expect it to be entering a new phase of development.
Is our civilisation in decline?
Good morning, SD, it’s good to meet you.
Yes, I think our civilisation is in decline, but not necessarily in permanent decline.
I speak from experience of Britain, of course, but I see similar signs elsewhere. Those signs include : an ever-increasing emphasis on material matters at the expense of spiritual ones : a growing dis-respect for institutions such as government, civil service, education and law : an appalling ‘social’ abortion rate, which runs at about 25% of all conceptions : and an increasing emphasis on individualism, together with the reaction against it in the form of increasing official interference in private life.
Such a summary, of course, needs considerable explanation, which can only be done step by step.
Morning! nice to meet you as well.
Suddenly I feel very British (which I am).
So I would agree with you on some matters. I find gross consumerism appalling, although the current system seems to support it’s cause. I’m not going to mention abortion because my opinion will be biased.
On the other hand I’m not sure about the other two points you’ve mentioned…
Yes there is some disrespect for the government, civil service, education and law. But in a large way that disrespect is reciprocated and I know a whole host of people who feel ignored by these bodies (government especially). Even more so they feel that they’ve been cast aside for the benefit of others. I don’t think anyone should feel that way at any point, and I don’t blame them for holding grudges. – That said this only adds to the idea of a civilisation in decline.
Lastly, on the individualist point, I may be naive, but in the current culture of social media where everyone world wide is connected, as well as when countries are trying to work together more and more, I would say the opposite is happening. The world is becoming more unified on a grander scale. Because of that people may try to be more individual, but only on an individual level. The interference in private life I think is simply because it’s possible, whereas before it wasn’t.
Anyway you are right, each of these topics have to be dealt with individually. This comment is already too long.
I think we’re broadly in agreement, SD, though there may be a number of devils in the details. We shall see.
On individualism, it is true that the world is becoming more unified in some ways ; but it is the unity of individuals. I take my cue from more general observations at home. For example, the high divorce rate is, I think, a symptom of individualism ; as is the abortion rate. Both are damaging and weakening our society.
Jamie
For once we are in full agreement on “yesterday and today” and everything in between.
We [the People] have gained so much and we have truly progressed in many ways; sadly though, we have failed to meet ourselves. When I decided to retire and go on the road for a few years aiming towards my birthplace in the South a friend who understood said to me “don’t forget yourself up here, you must take yourself along with you” and she was right; so have I found since.
I hope to find more of me before I go down to the river.
IkeJ
Hello, Ike.
Your friend showed herself to be as wise as you are. Thinking of our ‘self’ properly is a healing activity. I expect that when you thought of your self during your travels, your friend came up right beside you. The self is nothing without others ; it becomes complete with friends.
Jamie.