This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Whatever it is, I think it is the same thing that motivated Dr. Frankenstein.
Lust for knowledge, really? Maybe you could make the argument for Hirschfield and his era but that's not what's happening here.
The definitive portrayal of Dr. Frankenstein, of course, is Mary Shelly's novel. Before I respond to this, I am curious whether you (@IGI-111) have read the book, and, in case you have, whether, upon reflection, you think it is accurate to describe Dr. Frankenstein's driving motive as "lust for knowledge".
I have indeed read the novel, and though it was some years ago I think I remember it very well since it speaks to my sensibilities (both in terms of framing devices and man's relationship to Technics) and does so in more subtle a way than is usually depicted. Your question is hence understandable, but I indeed had in mind the proto-science-fiction novel.
As with any complex character, Victor's motives can be argued about of course. One can certainly attribute the ultimate cause of his great sin to his grief or other such mitigating circumstances, but it is my strong conviction that what moves him once he decides to bury himself into work at the University is indeed lust for knowledge. One can also make a case for the more obvious sin later called out by himself in his last words: ambition. But that hubris is not separate from what I'm describing here. He's not doing it because it would grant him prestige, he goes to great lengths to conceal the deed, he's doing it because he wants to know if he can do it.
He has no mind as to the consequences, implications or morality of his work, he is simply moved by the need to complete it. Which is made obvious by the lengths he is ready to go, the corners he is ready to cut, and ultimately, his immense disgust at himself and his creation once the work is completed.
The Creature comments on this itself, as you know, but I think the best argument for the central conflict of the novel being caused by this particular tendency is the cultural reception of the novel and Victor's character becoming such an allegory for the mad scientist that further works flanderized him to the degree you know.
There is more sin to the good doctor of course, and more virtue. But if there is a center to the universe of the novel it is indubitably the act of creation motivated by the sole unexamined desire to know how and if the unholy can even be done. It is after all "The Modern Prometheus".
If this analogy has any legs, it has to be about the desire to see if man can be turned into woman and vice versa, about transhumanism and the escape from the binding of natural laws without regard for prevailing morality. Not the petty bureaucratic impulse of classification and normalization that moves Canada as a nation and its managerial ilk today, which itself is justified by conforming to a morality, not disregard for it.
While it is true that Dr. Frankenstein wanted to know something, I think to state that as his motive, and leave it at that, leaves out what is most essential. I submit that Victor Frankenstein has more in common with Faust, or Elric of Melniboné than he does with, say, Paul Erdos, or Thomas Edison (doesn't it feel so?). Like Faust and Elric, but unlike Erdos or Edison, Dr. Frankenstein commits copious moral transgressions in the service of his compulsive quest (e.g., desecrating dead bodies, theft, vivisection). In his effort to cross certain boundaries as a far term objective, he crosses boundaries that he knows, or ought now, should not be crossed in the here and now. He could have violated those boundaries in a quest for knowledge, or, like Elric or Gilgamesh, in a quest for something else. So, I think Frankenstein's quest for knowledge is relatively incidental while his quest by forbidden means, for what he ought to know is within the exclusive dominion of the gods is essential. Like Prometheus.
From this I suspect one difference between you and me is that I believe Dr. Frankenstein -- along with Faust, and Elric, and the trans-mutilators -- are recklessly crosswise of morality plain and simple, not merely "prevailing" morality. They all lie to themselves to justify the intoxicating ecstasy of crossing boundaries, and seeming, for the time being, to get away with it. Like Prometheus.
Indeed I think our disagreement here may see its source in our different approaches of morality as a philosophical object.
It seems fair to characterize your view as accepting some visceral, objective, absolute, perhaps divine, morality. My own soul offers me no such luxuries and I am unfortunately bound to the perhaps cynical Nietzschean skepticism: morality is a subjective and instrumental construct of power. Tradition and natural law, though the elect of my own prejudices, I can't resign myself to call universal.
That said, we can perhaps mend the gap a bit.
The thrill of transgression you point to is real, that "meddling with the primal forces of nature" does indeed have something exciting about it.
I submit that this excitement is nothing else that will to power. That self-same transcendent impulse that is enabled by technics. The essence of modernity, and the bending of nature to one's will. There is something of this in trans-anything. It is undeniable to anyone who is intimately familiar with the matter. The power to decide that one of the most immutable components of one's condition is now subject to one's own control is awesome.
And in a sense, this is also what motivates the Canadian bureaucrat. But his isn't a thrill of bending nature to will, or at least not through so direct a mean. So I will still insist that, though both impulses can be arranged in the same rubric, be it of modernity or of hubris, they are still meaningfully different.
And this difference is I think extremely relevant to our current moment and key to understand no less than the present and future of politics. The current battle lines of elite and counter elite in the west are once again drawn on a precise difference between two modes of dealing with modernity. And that difference is quite exactly the one we are talking about here, between an individual desire of transcendence, escape and a collective desire of management, control.
Management and control by what agency and to what end?
To no end. This is whence the conflict comes. There is no end. It's very postmodern, which scorns the still-modernist futurists.
People always seem to speculate that the managerial class is motivated by money, power, ideology. They are all individually moved by such base human ends, but as a class these are immaterial. Adam Curtis describes this very well in Hypernormalization. The only identifiable goal is the maintenance of the current order, not of the principles of it, not of some fixed idea of it, just pure maintenance and management, with no vision, no goal, no real fundamental spirit.
This is how they are able to hold contradictory ideas and policies and turn on a dime whenever fashionable (as Covid made most conspicuous). Because the system in itself doesn't believe in anything. Not even the Promethean impulse that built it and which is embodied by this rival faction.
Then I have no idea what you are trying to say. Which side of the struggle corresponds to (A) individual desire of transcendence, escape, and which corresponds to (B) collective desire of management, control ?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Power is an end in itself, as Orwell noted.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm more familiar with Elric of Amestris; he is a bit more well-rounded when it comes to the topic of forbidden knowledge. While his actions do cause a great deal of suffering to himself and others, he isn't actually evil.
The difference is that most of his actions were in (or eventually orient themselves towards) the cause of serving others and not just serving himself; the person most affected by his actions in the first episode knew there were risks involved (though, inherently, not necessarily which ones).
Which is, ultimately, the difference between "we're pushing the boundaries with an objective goal in mind even though we know there are risks involved" and "that you felt like a girl one day is good enough for me so here's the pills, this'll really shock the squares/your parents/the outgroup, I swear I'm prescribing sterilization surgeries because it's helping the patient and not because I'm getting off on the idea of young people being castrated/that all men should be like this, etc.".
More options
Context Copy link
Does it not give you any pause that you've now likened these real and existing Canadian doctors to five fictional characters and zero real people? In fact contrasting this fictional archetype with two actual people.
Interesting question. Answer: no. Can you elucidate why you presume it ought to?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Do you think humans were not meant to have fire?
Good question. The theft of fire from the gods is the most common, indeed the default archetypal original sin in world religions [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theft_of_fire]. I don't believe there is any natural moral law forbidding people from making or using fire, or that we ought to give it back. The cultures that held (or hold) the stories sacred, including the classical Greeks, also didn't think they needed to relinquish fire or give it back. At the same time, I do believe there is a lot of wisdom in those stories. If that perplexes you, it might be because you are approaching religious mythology with the wrong hemisphere of your brain.
Looks to me that on your Wikipedia page, it's usually a divine being who steals fire, not man; the theft of fire is no mortal sin at all. This is true for the Greeks, certainly.
(The Abrahamic version of Prometheus is of course the serpent, and he didn't steal fire but rather talked woman into taking morality, and that WAS original sin. But IMO making the serpent a villain was a bizarre choice)
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think it is toxic combination of scientific curiosity and hubris. Could work for Oppenheimer though.
More options
Context Copy link
More effort than this, please.
I spent about half an hour on this post. The longest draft was a paragraph, but my eventual opinion was that the connection, for those who had read Frankenstein, would be more dramatic if I left it at that. If the post is deficient, it is not from lack of effort but lack of ability.
It looks like I was wrong to warn you for lack of effort. I apologize.
“More dramatic” is not necessarily better. Not at the cost of clarity and substance. I’d have preferred to see the full paragraph.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link