Humanity first--Science second

[coberst]

Humanity first—Science second

 

The scientific method has made MAN INTO A CIPHER. We had created a science that has become a Science; we have created a monster that can be spelled with a capital “S”. Women and men served best when they were hidden, unobserved behind the tubes and belts. Newton’s method demanded an observer who was inconspicuous and replaceable by a machine whenever possible. The laws governing the movement of the spheres where number one; humanity was the machine’s servant.

 

The Age of Enlightenment, the eighteenth century, began with a belief; the belief “that nature was kind and good”. After the Lisbon earthquake and resulting fire there precipitated a reexamination. While others succumbed to despair Rousseau optimistically proposed an ideal; Liberty had to be the goal of all institutions. It was to be a well-defined ideal, “a model of man”. Morality must be a human design forming “a secular map for human moral action”.

 

Rousseau was offering “the Science of Society something great, unprecedented—just what it needed: an ideal type of man…it was holistic, spiritual, nonreductive, descriptive, phenomenal…to describe man taken as a total thinking, feeling, free agent.” Rousseau showed that morality could be designed by woman and man in accordance to an ideal created by them. Rousseau determined that the “science of man” could have meaning only as “an active ideal-type science”.

 

Newtonian science left little room of such an idealistic model. It propounded a science of Science; the scientific method made man into a cipher, which served best when served lest. Rousseau pushed back; make humanity first and science second. When humanity is placed first “Existence is the thing—Man—the mass of men—Humanity; human music not the music of the spheres, that’s what interests man, the man of flesh and blood.”

 

The scientific method has made man into a cipher. Women and men served best when they were hidden, unobserved behind the tubes and belts. Newton’s method demanded an observer who was inconspicuous and replaceable by a machine whenever possible. The laws governing the movement of the spheres where number one; humanity was the machine’s servant.

 

The seventeenth century Enlightenment determined that knowledge should be controlled based upon the needs of humanity. The spirit of the age demanded a science of man that could run parallel with Newtonian science of objects. The judgment of this age was that mechanistic Science was morally unedifying. The Age of Enlightenment rediscovered the concept of alienation as it applied to women and men. Humanity became alienated from their nature by the Science of science. Subjects were deprived of their subjectivity in servitude to machines.

 

The Enlightenment gave us a science worthy of men and women, a subjective science, a science of human value and not a neutral science of machines. What are the greatest gifts for mankind, if not those that point the way to the maximization of liberation of human creative energies?

[GAHD]

I'll take reality over ideology any day. :note:

[coberst]

In an attempt to clarify and extend my OP I have added several paragraphs. The original OP is in bold. Also I failed to note that my ideas and quotes come from “Beyong Alienation” by Ernest Becker.

 

The seventeenth century, the Age of Enlightenment, was a turn away from a ‘God dominated culture’ to a ‘human dominated culture’. The Church had, for one thousand years, been the force that turned all eyes upon God and the hereafter. The Age of Enlightenment turned all eyes upon wo/man and existence as the center of concern.

 

Europe was becoming acquainted with cultures throughout the world and in so doing discovered that there are many cultures, there are many different ways that society can be organized. Anthropologists refer to this state of mind as “cultural relativity”. This attitude led to the question, which is correct, were the ancients mere savages or where they Noble Savages? When one compares one culture with another in an attempt to discover which is better one needs a metric. What is a standard of good and bad for culture?

 

A debate lasted throughout the century as to what is the fundamental nature of humans. Were we at rock bottom a Noble Savage or were we merely savages and any kind of civilization is an improvement. Had wo/man risen from a low state by civilization or was wo/man by nature a noble creature? This was the argument of The Enlightenment, which separated that period from the Renaissance. “It was a quest for an answer to the problem of how exactly society causes human unhappiness.”

 

Rousseau says: “For it is by no means a light undertaking to distinguish properly between what is original and what is artificial in the actual nature of man, or to form a true idea of a state which no longer exists, perhaps never did exist, and probably never will exist; and of which it is, nevertheless, necessary to have true ideas, in order to form a proper judgment of our present state.”

 

Rousseau is telling us that we must comprehend human nature if we are to gain a critical perspective upon which we can “formulate an ideal”. Social science would call this an ideal-typical one. “It is an imaginary projection against reality, a projection that guides man’s striving, even if the ideal is never reached nor can be reached. Either man lives with ideals that guide his efforts, or he wallows uncritically in his everyday world.”

 

The Age of Enlightenment, the eighteenth century, began with a belief; the belief “that nature was kind and good”. After the Lisbon earthquake and resulting fire there precipitated a reexamination. While others succumbed to despair Rousseau optimistically proposed an ideal; Liberty had to be the goal of all institutions. It was to be a well-defined ideal, “a model of man”. Morality must be a human design forming “a secular map for human moral action”.

 

Rousseau was offering “the Science of Society something great, unprecedented—just what it needed: an ideal type of man…it was holistic, spiritual, nonreductive, descriptive, phenomenal…to describe man taken as a total thinking, feeling, free agent.” Rousseau showed that morality could be designed by woman and man in accordance to an ideal created by them. Rousseau determined that the “science of man” could have meaning only as “an active ideal-type science”.

 

Newtonian science left little room of such an idealistic model. It propounded a science of Science; the scientific method made man into a cipher, which served best when served lest. Rousseau pushed back; make humanity first and science second. When humanity is placed first “Existence is the thing—Man—the mass of men—Humanity; human music not the music of the spheres, that’s what interests man, the man of flesh and blood.”

 

The scientific method has made man into a cipher. Women and men served best when they were hidden, unobserved behind the tubes and belts. Newton’s method demanded an observer who was inconspicuous and replaceable by a machine whenever possible. The laws governing the movement of the spheres where number one; humanity was the machine’s servant.

 

Science accomplished its assigned task when women and men remained value neutral. An experiment was ruined if a human emotion or idea outside the scientific facts required was intentionally or unintentional inserted.

 

Newtonian science was a mathematical, quantified pattern capable of reducing reality to an atomic level. It’s ideal, if there was one, was man as a machine or more likely a cog in a machine. In such a science we lose the individual man and woman. Rousseau was offering something entirely different. It was holistic and non-reducible. It was a gestalt that included man as neutral manipulator of scientific experiments but also as a subject with values who was a totally thinking, feeling, free agent.

 

“Rousseau showed that morality had to be instrumented, by man according to an ideal formulated by him; the science of man could only have meaning as an active ideal-type of science.” Newtonian science left no room for such and ideal. It had no room for a holistic woman or man. The solution proposed by Rousseau was to make humanity first and science second; science was to be the servant of wo/man rather than wo/man as the servant of science.

 

The seventeenth century Enlightenment determined that knowledge should be controlled based upon the needs of humanity. The spirit of the age demanded a science of man that could run parallel with Newtonian science of objects. The judgment of this age was that mechanistic Science was morally unedifying. The Age of Enlightenment rediscovered the concept of alienation as it applied to women and men. Humanity became alienated from their nature by the Science of science. Subjects were deprived of their subjectivity in servitude to machines.

 

The Enlightenment gave us a science worthy of men and women, a subjective science, a science of human value and not a neutral science of machines. What are the greatest gifts for mankind, if not those that point the way to the maximization of liberation of human creative energies?

[Pyrotex]

If you're looking for intelligent people to drop in and give intelligent responses, you first have to make sense.

 

You may want to wipe your chin. I think you're drooling.

[HydrogenBond]

The two things up for contrast, i.e., humanity and science, has a very simple basis. These are connected to the two hemispheres of the brain. Science is much more left hemisphere, while human nature is much more right hemisphere. For most of history, humans were predomantly right hemisphere, although the left was also used. They reacted out of habit or impulse instead of reason. All the great writers and thinkers from the past 3000 years maybe compose 0.001 percent of the population and should not be confused with the state of the majority. These were the exceptions and not the rule.

 

The age of enlightment shifted the center of thought more into the left hemisphere. The way it did that was by defining rational relationships of nature. It essentually built up a rational data base making the left hemisphere far more functional. When there was only dogma and irrational data points such as ghosts and gobblings, it was hard to use the power of reason to any useful affect. Right hemisphere intuition perception was better for that type of data.

 

What has happened is that the pendulum has swung far to the left such that the right hemipshere is seen as being as worthless as the pre-age of lightment saw the left hemisphere. The optimium is actually in the middle. What needs to happen is a type of second Age of Enlightment that fills the right hemisphere with sound data so it become more functional. These would the the spatial relationships of nature.

[InfiniteNow]

...humanity and science...These are connected to the two hemispheres of the brain. Science is much more left hemisphere, while human nature is much more right hemisphere.

What do you define as "human nature?"

 

Would not a logical inquiry be part of human nature, and also hence more specific to the left hemisphere? What about those people with very large corpus collosum? I understand your point regarding the general functions of each hemisphere, but even a person who has had a full left hemispherical removal can still engage in science and practice logic with the remaining right part (just probably not as well :D )

 

For most of history, humans were predomantly right hemisphere, although the left was also used.

Can you support this with anything more than analogy?

 

They reacted out of habit or impulse instead of reason.

This would be more of an inner reptilian brain versus neocortex distinction than a lateral hemisphere distinction. i.e. It's just plain wrong. Amydala, hippocampus, etc are in the center of the brain... neither left nor right. Reason tends to be prefrontal, executive function area... again, neither left nor right, but front.

 

 

The age of enlightment shifted the center of thought more into the left hemisphere. The way it did that was by defining rational relationships of nature. It essentually built up a rational data base making the left hemisphere far more functional.

The reader should note that, while HBs point above is a relatively valid interpretation, it is a personal interpretation and really has no (HB, the word you really hate) empirical basis.

 

When there was only dogma and irrational data points such as ghosts and gobblings, it was hard to use the power of reason to any useful affect.

That's going on in today's society. This isn't some archaic concept, but a description of the current social climate in the US (and perhaps beyond).

 

The optimium is actually in the middle.

While I do not agree with the point which brought you here, this is a worthwhile interpretation. It does, however, beg the question, optimal for whom? :cup:

 

What needs to happen is a type of second Age of Enlightment that fills the right hemisphere with sound data so it become more functional.

The "right hemisphere" isn't exactly a mass of dead inactive tissue. It's incredibly active, and highly involved with tasks that you engage in everyday. While some will show greater neural and circulatory activity in one hemisphere over the other, both are highly active regardless of who is tested.

 

You are making definite conclusions based on abstract analogies. Chemist that you are, I know you're bright, but perhaps you should study some mid-20th century psychology to get your facts in order before posting about the brain and mind.

 

 

Watching a football game on television doesn't mean I'm on the field. :hyper:

[rocket art]

I believe that for humanity to continually progress with the challenges of the Future, both the highly subjective motivations in dealing with science, and detached characterization of science to the Human phenomenon, may not be the appropriate approach.

 

I believe the relative approach between Science and the Human is more appropriate if we seek to be in command for the Future (in the Awareness of the relative relation beween the 'observed' Science and the 'observer Human)'. As we seek for the envisioning of an Ideal Future (I really have to make use of my 'rocket' terminology for these), there is need to gain inspiration from the Ideal Past as the existing approaches of the confusing, polluting, strife infested Present may not provide all solutions due to highly subjective, selfish manipulations occuring, and with such dilemma, neither a detached science could answer the complex demands of the Human condition.

 

The Ideal Past (classical, renaissance) that constitute the foundation of earlier civilizations was achieved due to the fusion, the relative relation of dual polarities, I may generally identify as the Science and Art, that signify the logical and creative side of the individual. As eventual manipulations due to subjective motivations were initiated through the centuries, these two had been greatly separated in the chaotic Present era, as the manipulation eventually severed a detached science that may seem inclined more for the needs of a cold machinery, than the needs of the emotional Human, and where selfishness becomes the objective of the era rather than a more relative relationship between Human and Nature, and with our Planet, and with the Universe in general.

 

Such reawakening, Awareness, of the relative relation between a free, evolving Human and the living science in Nature and Universe surrounding him/her, is the key in achieving the 'envisioned' Ideal Future, rather than a bleak future where the cold, detached machinery of a science subjected to Selfishness rule to enslave the human instead.

 

This would be more of an inner reptilian brain versus neocortex distinction than a lateral hemisphere distinction.

 

I wonder if you seem to know something about this in the hidden history of the past.

 

The age of enlightment shifted the center of thought more into the left hemisphere.

 

The age of enlightenment was the fusion and balance of both the left (age of reason) and right (Art renaissance) that brought solution to the subjective, irrational dark ages (in Europe that was, actually some parts of Asia by that time had already achieved a higher degree of civilization in their artistic and scientific culture). However as time progresses, western thought was manipulated to a left hemisphere bias (causing incompatibility with other cultures) that culminated with the confusion and strife for the Present.

 

What needs to happen is a type of second Age of Enlightment that fills the right hemisphere with sound data so it become more functional.

 

Pardon, but the erroneous statement merely confirms the obvious manipulation on the individual to a detached, left hemisphere bias and need for Awareness to a highly functioning, very dynamic polarity of the right-hemisphered Human Creativity (which, when justly used becomes a very powerful Human ability) whose role is to soar beyond existing data (as its relevant tool).

[coberst]

HydrogenBond

 

Right on. We over-compensated as we moved from the God centered to the human centered. We must find a way to move to the center with a moral rationality that can save us from destroying ourself and our planet. Science is an instrment that we have become enchanted with and have converted into a god.

[coberst]

RocketArt says--"Such reawakening, Awareness, of the relative relation between a free, evolving Human and the living science in Nature and Universe surrounding him/her, is the key in achieving the 'envisioned' Ideal Future, rather than a bleak future where the cold, detached machinery of a science subjected to Selfishness rule to enslave the human instead."

 

I say--Amen brother/sister!

[rocket art]

I may ultimately consider myself as 'ageless' and 'genderless' but meantime you could address me as 'he.'

[coberst]

'he'

 

No insult meant.

[rocket art]

it's ok. I've heard rumors from Plato though, that humanity's ancient ancestors (much older than biblical version) were hermaphroditic. but that deviates from main topic of this thread so it may not be discussed here, unless it's opened up in my thread and talk about Ideal Past stuffs over there...