Is modern literature failing philosophy?

[Bernard]

Alarms have been going off for millennia as regards lack of good thinking. I'm thinking that if literature is no longer a viable viable philosophical arena then it has possibly used up its potential in that vein. It remains as a tool that can be used and its not the hoi polloi that prevent philosophers from using it

Don't forget that historical philosophical 'spikes' are usually the result of a society which provides the leisure time for individuals to think. The great wealth that colonising other lands and people's brings forth is usually the means through which that leisure is possible. In our own day the only colonising that goes on is via global corporations. It is where today's only 'will to power' lies. The increasing gap between the ultra rich and everyone else is evidence of what's going on via big business. But there seems no flow on effect as yet into the arts and humanity. Science benefits because of the provision of the technology behind the success. So I guess if you want to look anywhere in literature for exciting new philosophy you'd have to learn to read science, not that the philosophy would lie in the science, but I think you'd find some philosophy being tolerated and nurtured in those quarters... which us back to Bladerunner and the like I guess

[Immanuel Can]

Well, if you're right, Bernard, then what do you make of the fact that modern, Western societies have more leisure time than any other societies have ever had? Yet we aren't spending our leisure "thinking" so much as entertaining ourselves or going shopping.

As for science, it is a *product* of philosophy more than an environment in which philosophy naturally takes place. Science is paradigm-dependent, and does not generate its own founding paradigms but borrows what it has from philosophy. If that is right (and I think it clearly is historically right), then we cannot look to science itself to generate philosophy, but in fact perhaps might rather look for reasoning and inquiry (i.e. philosophy) to generate new fields of knowledge to supplement those areas in which science itself is having difficulty making progress.

That some of those sorts of ideas have, in past, come from literature, has to be of concern to us if literature itself is now defunct. From whence will the new paradigms come, if for some reason people have stopped the process of the thoughtful, meditative exploration of reality and of the suppositions on which our beliefs stand?

[thedoc]

Alarms have been going off for millennia as regards lack of good thinking. I'm thinking that if literature is no longer a viable viable philosophical arena then it has possibly used up its potential in that vein. It remains as a tool that can be used and its not the hoi polloi that prevent philosophers from using it

But isn't this standard fare for philosophers, to rail at society for it's lack. Socrates railed at his society for their lack of critical thinking and his society condemned him to death for it. If literature or any other medium is failing philosophy, it is only the latest in a long list. If you're a philosopher, bust their chops, that's your job.

[Immanuel Can]

Fair enough, thedoc. I wonder, though, if we aren't in a unique situation here. We all know that the media -- and the infotainment-telecomplex (internet, telephone, video games, ipods, etc.) in particular -- is powerful to a degree unprecedented in history in regards to producing cognitive change. And as we're learning about brain elasticity, we're also learning that this complex can change the actual shape of the brain itself. What the reconstituted human brain will gain or lose in this exchange we cannot yet say; but all experts seem to agree that it is likely it won't be quite like anything hitherto known.

I don't know that we have any frame of reference from history for this particular development. It might well be a sea change of a sort we've never seen before. If so, maybe this is a special time for a cautionary voice. If it's not the philosophers who speak up for the importance of the ability to think, then from whence shall we expect the voice of sober second-thought?

[thedoc]

Fair enough, thedoc. I wonder, though, if we aren't in a unique situation here. We all know that the media -- and the infotainment-telecomplex (internet, telephone, video games, ipods, etc.) in particular -- is powerful to a degree unprecedented in history in regards to producing cognitive change. And as we're learning about brain elasticity, we're also learning that this complex can change the actual shape of the brain itself. What the reconstituted human brain will gain or lose in this exchange we cannot yet say; but all experts seem to agree that it is likely it won't be quite like anything hitherto known.

I don't know that we have any frame of reference from history for this particular development. It might well be a sea change of a sort we've never seen before. If so, maybe this is a special time for a cautionary voice. If it's not the philosophers who speak up for the importance of the ability to think, then from whence shall we expect the voice of sober second-thought?

Unique? only in the scope or scale, officialdom has always had control of the official announcements, the media of it's day. Do you really believe that the ancients didn't 'spin' whatever story was circulating, to their advantage? Lying is probably as old as language, modern society didn't invent it, and they didn't even perfect it, that was done a long time ago. Modern society is lucky if they can just keep up. As all pervasive as the media seems to be to those in the west, there are many in the world that do not hear any of it, there is a literal blackout of western propaganda in much of the world, and who knows what original thought might come out of undeveloped countries.

All times are the proper time for a cautionary tale, because there are always problems to be addressed.

I would guess that 'brain elasticity' has always been with humanity, the difficulty is directly comparing brains of today with the brains of antiquity or prehistoric times. If it somehow becomes possible, I would think there might be a few surprises. A thought, there are a few primitive peoples living in remote areas of the world, and these might be representative of the more ancient brain structure, except that these cultures are being 'discovered' and corrupted by modern society.

[Bernard]

Yes it is a time that affords great leisure, and yes, that leisure is generally abused. I agree wholly with Doc that ever has it thus been as well. 'Those who can think well' are certainly therefore out there somewhere and able to make use of the leisure time to explore new pathways. Yet during any leisure cycle the thinkers are not called upon or required. It takes suffering within the society to flush them out, and for their discoveries to somehow help through a suffering cycle. It's only then that philosophy is respected and seen for what it is: the father of all studies not for God's sake a filigree of science! Gadzooks!

[Immanuel Can]

Unique? only in the scope or scale, officialdom has always had control of the official announcements, the media of it's day. Do you really believe that the ancients didn't 'spin' whatever story was circulating, to their advantage? Lying is probably as old as language, modern society didn't invent it, and they didn't even perfect it, that was done a long time ago. Modern society is lucky if they can just keep up. As all pervasive as the media seems to be to those in the west, there are many in the world that do not hear any of it, there is a literal blackout of western propaganda in much of the world, and who knows what original thought might come out of undeveloped countries.
It's not "spin" that is the concerning matter today, nor is it "officialdom" that we should worry about. You're right to say both are old phenomena. Something much more profound is at work: for while "spin" and propaganda distort the truth, they do not distort the brain itself. They do not physiologically resort synapses so that new pathways open up and old ones atrophy, reconstituting the "hardware" of thought. They just affect the "software."

The "hardware" changing has to be a special worry; because it doesn't just redefine the content, *what* is being believed, but rather it redefines what the brain is *capable* of believing, perceiving or processing. Propaganda changes belief; today's forces change the powers of intellection themselves. To use an example, a person who believes a faulty logical syllogism is still being logical, even though he believes wrongly; he is correctable, if you can muster sound logic to show him that he's wrong. But a person who has been permanently rendered incapable of, or merely indifferent to, logic itself is someone for whom no logical appeal is even possible. You can neither debate him nor correct him with logic; he is operating on a completely different wavelength -- perhaps emotion, or impulse, or rote -- but he neither recognizes nor is capable of recognizing his logical fault nor of being corrected in that way: he must be appealed to on the basis he is operating, or he cannot be convinced.

I would guess that 'brain elasticity' has always been with humanity, the difficulty is directly comparing brains of today with the brains of antiquity or prehistoric times. If it somehow becomes possible, I would think there might be a few surprises. A thought, there are a few primitive peoples living in remote areas of the world, and these might be representative of the more ancient brain structure, except that these cultures are being 'discovered' and corrupted by modern society.

Yes, I concede that brain elasticity is a ubiquitous phenomenon, not a new thing in itself. But the stretching of this elasticity into the particular directions achieved by modern mass media is a genuinely new thing. And we don't need a total account of brain history to see it; all we need to do is compare physiological structure and action between persons heavily influenced by the infotainment telecomplex and those who are not influenced by it -- of whom there is still a significant pool. We can see and verify the profound shift that is taking place. It is not just subjectively recognized, it is increasingly well-documented in both scientific brain research and in reports from practical pedagogy.

But consider it for yourself; have you not noticed any change in children subjected to large quantities of mass media? Or have you noticed any change in the way you think and write in yourself? For my part, I would say "Yes" to both.

I suggest, therefore, that something new is happening; it is not just a recycling of the usual generational or academic-elite discontents with the masses. And part of it involves the passing of the "literary" era and the coming on of something in its place. The interesting questions are, "What is coming now?" and for us, "How will it change philosophy?"

[aiddon]

A very insighful post, IC, and one with which I am in complete agreement. I have been working with teenagers for six years, and while it is not an enormous period of time, I feel I have some experience of current learning styles and pedagogical concerns.

But consider it for yourself; have you not noticed any change in children subjected to large quantities of mass media? Or have you noticed any change in the way you think and write in yourself? For my part, I would say "Yes" to both.

I would say, absolutely, yes. The children I am in contact with have an interest in reading varying from some to absolutely none. Mass media has condensed information into bitesize chunks to cater for attention spans of less than a few minutes. As the internet is the medium of choice, information is at best apocryphal, at worst dangerous.

I suggest, therefore, that something new is happening; it is not just a recycling of the usual generational or academic-elite discontents with the masses. And part of it involves the passing of the "literary" era and the coming on of something in its place. The interesting questions are, "What is coming now?" and for us, "How will it change philosophy?"

If we take the humble book as Exhibit A. The fact that, within a generation, it may be replaced as the primary mode of communicating the written word - something it has done for the six hundred years - is testimony alone that "something is happening". In the space of ten years the book's significance as a distributor of great ideas, subversive ideas, ideas that have changed the world, has been eroded like nothing before. In its place has come the 140-character tweet, user-modified online encyclopedias, the tagged photo, the ego-centric musings of bored masses. As instruments of human cultures go, nothing has been obliterated so quickly as the book. There is the temptation to swat away such sentimentality as "generational or academic-elite discontents with the masses", as IC put it, but this is to ignore the reality of the seismic shift that is occurring. It raises serious questions of the utility of technology. The standard line is that all technological progression is positive, should be welcomed. Can we say this about the atomic weapons revolution, whereby all of a sudden we had two hemispheres of the globe paranoid beyond all reason? We've had grotesque wars declared on innocent populations based on irrational and unfounded fears of clandestine nuclear arsenals. Technology, like all human eneavours must also be subject to the same rigorous questioning.

What we are experiencing right now is an alienation of our youth on a scale not seen since the outbreak of the First World War, where humankind saw for the first time the abject cruelty that supposedly rational, civilised man can inflict on fellow man. In modern times we have already undergone both the alienation from our environment and the alienation from religion - this time the alienation is a more serious one, I think - the alienation from society itself. Phone and computer companies market the concept of "being connected" as somehow being in the world, when it is nothing more than being utterly passive, utterly disconnected, utterly neutralised. Whereas before we turned in on ourselves towards ourselves to think and to discover what it was to be human, now we have simply turned in and away from ouselves. The irony of the "connected" society, whereby we can have 500 friends and still be sitting alone in front of our computers. It is marketing and consumerism at its ugly worst. We have lost something and it will be next to impossible to find it unless our current fixations with technology, consumerism and ego are scrutinised.

[Immanuel Can]

Eloquent and interesting, aiddon. I concur completely.

Freud warned us that technology has two sides: it "giveth" and it "taketh away," so to speak. If anyone is interested, why not see what he said at
http://www2.winchester.ac.uk/edstudies/ ... l-Disc.pdf, and page 13-14 in particular.

These two pages are a short read, but they'll give you a really good look at the two sides of technological advance. It's not all roses-and-sunshine, as aiddon so ably points out.

[thedoc]

A very insighful post, IC, and one with which I am in complete agreement. I have been working with teenagers for six years, and while it is not an enormous period of time, I feel I have some experience of current learning styles and pedagogical concerns.

[quote='IC"]But consider it for yourself; have you not noticed any change in children subjected to large quantities of mass media? Or have you noticed any change in the way you think and write in yourself? For my part, I would say "Yes" to both.

I would say, absolutely, yes. The children I am in contact with have an interest in reading varying from some to absolutely none. Mass media has condensed information into bitesize chunks to cater for attention spans of less than a few minutes. As the internet is the medium of choice, information is at best apocryphal, at worst dangerous.

I have to disagree with this, except in the most general terms. Any person will have an attention span that is proportional to the level of interest. Many years ago I read or heard that film producers will edit films to have clips and shots that are not more than a specific number of seconds long, sorry I don't remember the figure given. But it's nonsense, if a film is interesting it can grab the attention of the viewer and a scene can be as long as it needs to be. The only reason to use short shots is if the film is poor and not very interesting. I have observed both extremes of this characteristic, I taught school between 1970 and 1976 and some students had a very short attention span for my particular subject. More recently I have been taking care of my grandson since he was born 8 years ago and I have seen him absorbed in some activity or a TV show for much longer that a few minutes. These are not junk entertainment but science and information type programs on a wide variety of subjects. Dinosaurs, Volcanoes, Cooking, ('The mind of a Chef', his father is a cook in a restaurant), crafts, and a few Grandpa approved movies. I sometimes check to see that he is still awake and blinking, he can watch without moving for a half hour or more sometimes, especially the first time watching. A short attention span is fiction, the product of the media misunderstanding of the human being. They are aiming at the lowest common denominator, and that is the cretin with a very short attention span and low intelligence, and that is certainly not my grandson, or many other people I know.

[aiddon]

The Doc, while I have no doubt your grandson is a bright and clever boy, he alone is not representative of the entire generation of children. I am in contact with 200+ children each day and I can positively attest to frightening levels of concentration. Of course there are exceptions to this, as anything would. Also I am specifically referring to reading as per my original post on literature and philosophy. Most kids can engage with TV screens for long periods of time...that is not in question. Your grandson perhaps paradoxically confirms my assertion - that newer forms of media have pushed back literacy and cognitive skills to detriment, I feel, of society. Watching science documentaries unfortunately is not going to create the next generation of critical thinkers.

[thedoc]

The Doc, while I have no doubt your grandson is a bright and clever boy, he alone is not representative of the entire generation of children. I am in contact with 200+ children each day and I can positively attest to frightening levels of concentration. Of course there are exceptions to this, as anything would. Also I am specifically referring to reading as per my original post on literature and philosophy. Most kids can engage with TV screens for long periods of time...that is not in question. Your grandson perhaps paradoxically confirms my assertion - that newer forms of media have pushed back literacy and cognitive skills to detriment, I feel, of society. Watching science documentaries unfortunately is not going to create the next generation of critical thinkers.

Perhaps not, but being able to focus ones attentions on a single subject for extended periods of time will help in the development of critical thinking skills. If a person can't focus on a problem for more than a few minutes, they will never be able to figure out that problem, and that is, I believe, one aspect of critical thinking.

One of the things I do, is that while watching some of these programs, I will point out errors and explain why they are errors. My grandson can then watch programs and compare what is being presented with what he has learned before. This comparison, and subsequent analysis is another part of critical thinking. I understand that I can only effect the education of a few individuals, but I feel that is better than doing nothing.

[Immanuel Can]

being able to focus ones attentions on a single subject for extended periods of time will help in the development of critical thinking skills.

Precisely right. But that is the very skill that the preponderance of scientific evidence suggests that the infotainment telecomplex erodes most rapidly.

But hey, don't take my word for it -- ask yourself this: how long does it take to teach one's grandson how to read, even supposing he's a very smart kid?

And just how long does it take to teach a child, any child, even a child of minimal intelligence how to watch TV?

Get it?