The Silliness of the "Moderns"
People who regard themselves as modern typically bang on about how "empirical" they are, and how they recognize the importance of "evolution."
That they are just paying lip service to certain shibboleths is demonstrated by how often they regard, as a conclusive refutation of some traditional practice or rule of morality, the "criticism" that "It's old-fashioned."
E.g., someone says, "Well, I think people should get married before they live together."
The "modern" person's response: "Oh, that attitude is so old-fashioned!"
And they think that is a criticism! Because a practice has survived for a very long time, and therefore the group that has adopted that practice has also survived for a very long time... therefore, it must be bad!
What a stunningly anti-empirical, anti-evolutionary claim!
Now, simply because some trait has been existence for a very long time does not necessarily mean it aids the survival of those possessing it: sometimes, a negative or neutral trait may be accidentally carried along in a package with a bunch of pro-survival traits. Or, perhaps, the trait was once pro-survival, but it has outlived its usefulness. Nevertheless, if one is truly an empiricist, and actually understands evolution, one should at least suspect that there is a decent probability that some long-surviving trait actually promotes the survival of the organisms having that trait.
That they are just paying lip service to certain shibboleths is demonstrated by how often they regard, as a conclusive refutation of some traditional practice or rule of morality, the "criticism" that "It's old-fashioned."
E.g., someone says, "Well, I think people should get married before they live together."
The "modern" person's response: "Oh, that attitude is so old-fashioned!"
And they think that is a criticism! Because a practice has survived for a very long time, and therefore the group that has adopted that practice has also survived for a very long time... therefore, it must be bad!
What a stunningly anti-empirical, anti-evolutionary claim!
Now, simply because some trait has been existence for a very long time does not necessarily mean it aids the survival of those possessing it: sometimes, a negative or neutral trait may be accidentally carried along in a package with a bunch of pro-survival traits. Or, perhaps, the trait was once pro-survival, but it has outlived its usefulness. Nevertheless, if one is truly an empiricist, and actually understands evolution, one should at least suspect that there is a decent probability that some long-surviving trait actually promotes the survival of the organisms having that trait.
Or is it just an observation it now only survives as the exception.
ReplyDeleteSo kind of, "We've wrecked every other practice that kept our culture alive: let's wreck that one too"?
DeleteIt no longer survives the test of time.
ReplyDeleteWell, no, it still does: that's why it is around to complain about, hey?
DeletePlus, people can abandon something that *does* "stand the test of time" for something that doesn't: for instance, we have repeated episodes in history where some time-honored code of sexual morality was abandoned for some form of "anything goes": and in every case, the society that adopted "anything goes" crashed and burned.
But I bet they thought they were being "modern"!