Sadly, the music biz doesn't work like that at all. Though since it seems to make you feel better to imagine it does, knock yourself out.
Tarski
Maybe my recent comments on here have been overly diffuse. I'll try to sharpen them.
Enlightenment thinkers identified the religious worldview as an impediment to human progress: social, ethical, political, etc. However, in presuming the possibility of such progress, with all that presupposes and implies, Enlightenment thinkers showed that they had not really cast off a fundamentally "religious" type of thinking at all. They had merely deleted the central organizing principle of a Western, anthropomorphic "god" and replaced it with something else (Hegel's geist, e.g.).
And while a variety of doctrines ensue from such changes, it is often unclear whether they can ultimately make much greater claim to legitimacy (certainly empirical legitimacy) than those they replaced. Nor should this be so surprising; after all, in the end, outside the core of science, it's just a bunch of guys making stuff up. That's all it - ethics, morals, conventions, etc. - can ever be. Whether it's the Ten Commandments or "rational ethics", all this stuff comes from the same flawed source - wildly fallible human minds saturated with potent cocktails of hormones. (And because a Benthamian "pain/pleasure" basis is the only conceivable basis on which ultimately to prefer one to the other, "moral legitimacy" in human affairs seems unable to lay any more claim to "specialness" or "transcendence" than the reactions of B.F. Skinner's selectively shocked rats.
On what basis should we imagine the possibility of (permanent) human "progress"? Even where Group A comes up with a better solution to a human problem than Group B, all it takes is for Group B to say no to it; and it will be, for them, as though no such solution exists (centrally-planned economies stubbornly sitting next to prosperious free market economies, e.g.). And, once new people join Group A, who is to say they won't decide to try different - worse - things? (Younger, more brutal mafiosi, e.g.). What if Group A people just forget what they've already learned, or can't apply knowledge to difference circumstances? (Vietnam War mover Rumsfeld puts Paul Bremer in Iraq, who almost singlehandedly creates creates an insurgency, costing thousands of American lives). Things get worse, things get better, things get worse again, things get better again...progress in human affairs is inherently slippery. And it is never immune to sudden reversals (see 1914-1919, or 1939-1945, or Joseph Conrad, or Stanley Milgram, e.g.).
To presume the existence of a sort of linear "march of progress" (again barring purely scientific progress) is to presume that human beings are primarily rational and primarily virtuous. But the brutal fact is that history affords no reason to believe that we are either. So to believe we are, is to allow what we most wish were true to overwhelm what the evidence indicates to us actually is true. And how is that not the definition of religious thinking?
Casting off a religious worldview means not just to put something new inside the same old box, or swapping one box for another; it means trying to get beyond boxes altogether. I'm not sure that's possible - maybe we are so fundamentally "religious", that we cannot escape that way of viewing things - but I think that's what it means.
On what basis should we imagine the possibility of (permanent) human "progress"?
Progress toward what?
Knowledge?
Salvation/enlightenment?
Technology?
Political Stability?
The problem of death and sickness?
Human rights?
Scientific progress?
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
On what basis should we imagine the possibility of (permanent) human "progress"?
Progress toward what?
Knowledge? Salvation/enlightenment? Technology? Political Stability? The problem of death and sickness? Human rights? Scientific progress?
---As I said, progress in ethics, politics, society, etc. Progress in science seems generally cumulative and pretty enduring; it is very difficult to imagine the human race discarding electricity and not replacing it with anything, for example. But I'm not so sure there is a corollary, say, in ethics. (Maybe there is and I just can't see it).
Sadly, the music biz doesn't work like that at all. Though since it seems to make you feel better to imagine it does, knock yourself out.
Tarski
Maybe my recent comments on here have been overly diffuse. I'll try to sharpen them.
Enlightenment thinkers identified the religious worldview as an impediment to human progress: social, ethical, political, etc. However, in presuming the possibility of such progress, with all that presupposes and implies, Enlightenment thinkers showed that they had not really cast off a fundamentally "religious" type of thinking at all. They had merely deleted the central organizing principle of a Western, anthropomorphic "god" and replaced it with something else (Hegel's geist, e.g.).
And while a variety of doctrines ensue from such changes, it is often unclear whether they can ultimately make much greater claim to legitimacy (certainly empirical legitimacy) than those they replaced. Nor should this be so surprising; after all, in the end, outside the core of science, it's just a bunch of guys making stuff up. That's all it - ethics, morals, conventions, etc. - can ever be. Whether it's the Ten Commandments or "rational ethics", all this stuff comes from the same flawed source - wildly fallible human minds saturated with potent cocktails of hormones. (And because a Benthamian "pain/pleasure" basis is the only conceivable basis on which ultimately to prefer one to the other, "moral legitimacy" in human affairs seems unable to lay any more claim to "specialness" or "transcendence" than the reactions of B.F. Skinner's selectively shocked rats.
On what basis should we imagine the possibility of (permanent) human "progress"? Even where Group A comes up with a better solution to a human problem than Group B, all it takes is for Group B to say no to it; and it will be, for them, as though no such solution exists (centrally-planned economies stubbornly sitting next to prosperious free market economies, e.g.). And, once new people join Group A, who is to say they won't decide to try different - worse - things? (Younger, more brutal mafiosi, e.g.). What if Group A people just forget what they've already learned, or can't apply knowledge to difference circumstances? (Vietnam War mover Rumsfeld puts Paul Bremer in Iraq, who almost singlehandedly creates creates an insurgency, costing thousands of American lives). Things get worse, things get better, things get worse again, things get better again...progress in human affairs is inherently slippery. And it is never immune to sudden reversals (see 1914-1919, or 1939-1945, or Joseph Conrad, or Stanley Milgram, e.g.).
To presume the existence of a sort of linear "march of progress" (again barring purely scientific progress) is to presume that human beings are primarily rational and primarily virtuous. But the brutal fact is that history affords no reason to believe that we are either. So to believe we are, is to allow what we most wish were true to overwhelm what the evidence indicates to us actually is true. And how is that not the definition of religious thinking?
Casting off a religious worldview means not just to put something new inside the same old box, or swapping one box for another; it means trying to get beyond boxes altogether. I'm not sure that's possible - maybe we are so fundamentally "religious", that we cannot escape that way of viewing things - but I think that's what it means.
The transcending of a box is an ideal that fits nicely in a box.
One moment in annihilation's waste, one moment, of the well of life to taste- The stars are setting and the caravan starts for the dawn of nothing; Oh, make haste! -Omar Khayaam
Tal Bachman wrote: To presume the existence of a sort of linear "march of progress" (again barring purely scientific progress) is to presume that human beings are primarily rational and primarily virtuous. But the brutal fact is that history affords no reason to believe that we are either. So to believe we are, is to allow what we most wish were true to overwhelm what the evidence indicates to us actually is true. And how is that not the definition of religious thinking?
A lot of the secular humanist thoughts align with my views yet, I do not believe humans are primarily rational or virtuous. I believe some are -- I wish more were. I know what steps I (individually) take can affect the people closest to me, my neighbors, and at times, those I never meet. Is that religious thinking? I don't know. When I take an action and immediately see the payoff (negative or positive) I can determine how to proceed. I do lots of charitable giving and volunteer work -- this is my small bit of attempting to help those about me (and just 'cause it makes me HAPPY:). Why are these thoughts religious?
I make actions on who to give to because I see they are in need. Nothing on faith. I seek solutions to problems I encounter by considering the pros/cons -- drawbacks and rewards -- perhaps a wee leap of faith at some point. I understand that people live NOW and that solutions must be created by those that are in the here and now and not handed off to some God of lala land that supposedly has the answers. Ethics are determined by humans-- there are no morals that are passed down for no real purpose whatsoever....