Today, in my anthropology class, we were discussing an article, which essentially said that people during the "Hunter-Gatherer" period had better health, than most people here in the modern era. This discussion brought forth a debate on whether or not, we are really better off for all our globalization, technology and progress?

Or it this just another "noble savage" arguement, ie, is man good and is corrupted by society?

That presupposes that health is both a necessary and sufficient condition for "the good life."

Also, just for argument's sake because you had this in the title, I do believe we are no longer considered to be in the "modern" paradigm of history, but are now in a "post-modern" chaos (much like the hellenistic period and the renaissance period), where all the previously unquestioned symbols (in this case, science, rights, progress, etc.) are now brought to our attention and, well, we have no idea what the hell they mean anymore. After the death of so many millions of people in the 20th century (I believe more people were killed in the 1900's than ever lived at any one time during the 14th century and before, but you'll have to check that), can we really say that technology has brought us the peace and prosperity that was once promised? Hardly.

Haha, yes I am aware that we are in the post-modern era, and I considered putting that in the title, but that's really a different kind of issue. And technically, the post-modern is an extension within the modern era, many are not sure that it is a paradigm unto itself. I think that this debate is still important, becuase we as individuals need to decide if all that we have sacrificed for "progress" is worth it. Yes, terrbile wars! and Profliferation Anxiety! and so on...But still, I mean though, isn't it better to live in a socirty with millions of restaruants than rummaging some bushes for berries? I mean, think how far as a species we have come, but not all at once, there are still people who live the hunter-gatherer existence, and are unaware of "post-modern" west.

I think that we are better off for our progress, Science has improved our living conditions tremendously. However, it is apparent that along with our exponential technological progress, it has been accompanied by this nihilist "Post-modern" condiition. So we don't even really appreciate our progressed good life.

Well, I'd say a lot of the nihilism has come from this positivist position we are still stuck in. Although positivism died out in the rest of the world in the 1920's or so, the United States is still wholly engrossed in the idea that the highest form of knowledge comes from science (and the rest-- values, morality, reason, etc. are tossed aside). Positivism rose out of the desperate hope that we could put our faith in the unfeeling nature of technology so that it would end all suffering. Sadly, this hasn't been the case.
Albert Einstein is famously quoted as saying "Technology in the hands of modern man is like a hatchet in the hands of a madman."

Also, I agree that post-modernism is not its own paradigm. To have your own boxed paradigm, all the symbols and the ideas of that civilization must be steady. Obviously, that is no longer the case.

Just to make sure we're on the same page of the historical paradigm, we have it going [classical]-hellenistic-[medieval]-renaissance-[modern], correct? And then, arguably, we have entered the post-modern era?

Sorry for changing the main focus of this topic, heh. We can keep talking about the above, if you like, or I can stop talking about it altogether.

Hey Kitar, I'm back to this. I'm not so sure that positivism is responsible for nihilism, I think Nietzche points out that it is due to the death of the idea of god, whom people thought was the only source of meaning. Positivism, a resurgence of the theories of David Hume, by the council in vienna in the post world war 2 era, was an attempt to fix Hume's fork, and find a place for value in purely empirical source. This ofcourse lead, to linguistics and semiotics, again it was Hume that said that philosophy is really the play of words on a page. This ofcourse lead us, to Post-modernism and the search for new rules in the language game.

As for this:

I would put,

[classical]-[hellenistic]-[christian]-[medieval]-[renaissance]-[Age of

reason/Enlightment]-[Romanticism]-[Modernism>>Post-modernsim]

??

But then what did Nietzsche mean by the Death of God? Simply put, he saw an inversion of values in human society. What was once the higher was now the lower, and what was once the worse became the better. But to what, then, can we attribute this? Relativism. Once you begin to believe that everything is true within a context, nothing then can become false. If you believe that raping women is a perfectly acceptable behavior, well, then those are your values.
This is where positivism comes in to play. Yes, I do know about the School of Vienna, and I do know the purpose Albert Comte had in mind when he thought up positivism. And it was a noble goal, I do believe that. Trying to end human suffering is a wonderful ideal to pursue. What he forsaw was basically science becoming the new "religion," with scientist priests and everything. The problem with positivism is that the only form of knowledge you can ever attain is that which is observed. This leads to only two types of statements that can be either true or false. There are analytic statements (which are essentially true by definition, e.g. "2+2=4," and "All circles are round." Once you negate the preterite, the subject is falsified immediately) and synthetic statements (which are true only if they correspond to the current state of affairs and are verifiable, e.g. "George Bush is the president of the US of A."). What this leaves out are evaluative statements, which are prescriptive rather than descriptive (which the first two statements are). Evaluative statements get into the "ought," which can never be observed by science. Where can you observe murder being wrong?
Hume actually said something along the lines of "If what you say isn't either true by definition or verifiable, then I have no idea what the hell you're talking about."
So, then, tell me. What exactly do you do with all conceptions of morality, value theories, etc.? Hell with it, that's up to the individual to find what they believe. What's true for them is true for them.
This is how positivism leads to relativism, which leads to nihilism.
Once you deduce the beauty of mankind down to neurological functions, you destroy what makes man man (philosophy-- our ability to question, culture, the agony of the soul, the problem of the one and the many... there's just too much to list here).
I'd honestly love to bring in the ascension of the masses to complete social and political power and the Protestant Reformation and talk about how much they have to do with how we are where we are today, but I'll save that for another time.

Firstly, the reason I but brackets around some periods and left others without them was because during the bracketed paradigms, the ideas of that society were solid and unquestioned. There have really been only three great expansions in the entirety of Western Civilization. The first was Alexander the Great spreading Greek culture throughout the Mediterrenean (which turned into the Hellenistic period). The second was the entire voyage into the "New World" alongside with all the other imperalism of the rest of the world and the breakdown of the Vatican and the rise of science (Thus, the Renaissance is not bracketed). Lastly, we have us, where we are trying to attain what, now? Yes, a global market (Which is why we are in a post-modern time).
What changes when you are spreading your culture to new areas and are required to explain everything about your culture to a people who have never heard of such concepts. When you begin having to explain, you realize that all the symbols of your society are questionable and may not be the universal values you thought they were. Thus, once they are questioned, they no longer are steady and firm as they once were.
I do wonder, though, why have you separated Christianity from the Medieval period? They are the same.
Also, the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment and Transcendentalism all fall into the modernist period. I return to the symbols. What were theirs? Progress. Rights. Freedom. Liberalism (individualism for those who don't already know). They were constant throughout those periods that you have separated.

Honestly, though, I would like to hear why you've drawn up the paradigms as you have. I've given reasons for why I put 'em like I did. Now it's your turn. :P

Wow you really know your stuff, I really don't like to dealve into really long explanations, but since we're here, what the hell.

I don't think positivism is as bad as your making it, because it was a nessecary step to get to where we are, but then I guess one could say that with just about anything in history.

OK, here are my explanations for my periods..

Classical- Ok we all know this, Athens, Socrates, Plato, blah blah blah...

Hellenistic- yeah Aristotle (arguable) Alexander the great through Roman Emprire...

Christian- Fall of Rome, Council of Nicea, St. Augustine, Spread of christianity in europe, through the fall of Constantinople. Charlemagne..this I guess would be better put as the "dark Ages"

Medieval-Agreed upon era.

Renaissance- clearly marked transitional stage, revivalism of classical

OK so this is where we diverge, and here is my thinking on this.

The enlightenment/age of reason brings forward reasoning, scientific philosophy, classical liberalism, political revolution etc; colonialism.

In respnonse to this "Enlightment" is "Romanticism," essentially this period is marked in the 19th century and includes Rousseau, Hegel and Marx as well as many others. Industrialism brings major changes in society, and ultimately brings about social sciences, Sociology (Emile Durkhiem) Psychology and Anthropology (Boas) which analyze the negative effects of science on society.


Modernity includes ideas from both movements, and the 20th century thinking which is a combination of three basic doctrine.

The Blank Slate, the human mind has no innate qualities, everything is learned.

The "noble savage," that man is essentially good, but is corrupted by society

The Ghost in the Machine, the material body is occupied by a soul or conciousness.

I beleive all modern thinking is in some way tied to these 3 positions.

Post-modernism, is actually a growth from these positions ofcourse.

Can something come next?

<non-philosophical tangent> The Soviet Union, perhaps?

It's really an interesting idea. In general, I'm very critical of (western) modernity, often for more philosophical reasons (ie. critiques of rationalism and western universalism). In terms of health benefits and whatnot, I think it's very context-specific. Many 19th-century Londoners were worse off than most hunter-gatherers (here I'm citing statistics from Marx's Capital Volume I although I don't have the page number). That said, I think it can be very problematic to attempt to romanticize the "past" or those whom some Westerners consider to be living artifacts of such a history. I used to indulge in it myself but am now much more critical. In general, however, I'm very sceptical of technology. I think we've (the west) let loose a beast that will have very drastic (negative) consequences for this planet and all forms of life. Just now I'm thinking of the extinction rate that's been exponentially increasing as a result of industrial and post-industrial activities.