History as a whole follows a general trend. Things tend to be recurring tendencies. David S. Landes describes this pattern as tendencies to "cultivate skeptical faith, avoid dogma, listen and watch well, try to clarify and define ends, the better to chose means". Is he correct? Is Landes correct in thinking that since the end of the middle ages that those are the major recurring themes? Even more so, is the lesson he draws from this trend, "the need to keep trying", truly the best way to continue upon the path of the last six hundred or so years? In order to answer these discover the answers to these questions there is a need to take a look at each of his claims individually and see if they are supported by the major happenings of recent history, in that lies the answer to whether or not Landes is correct. Much more importantly, in that lies how we, the entire human population of Earth, need to proceed into the future as a whole.
Landes' first piece of the trend of the last six hundred years is quite hard to argue against, in that the world as a whole has in it's fairly recent history most definitely cultivated a skeptical faith. This path started with the Scientific Revolution which swung open the doors to doubt in everything. It's basic principles revolve around the need to physically prove everything before you can truly put faith in it's existence. Since the ideals and methods of the Scientific Revolution have become almost completely globally accepted, not to mention expected, the idea of basing knowledge on faith alone has become laughable to most. You can not tell someone that grass is green because some guy went around with a crayon the day before, without them being skeptical (well... assuming their IQ is above room temperature... Celsius). Skepticism in everything has slowly but surely been growing since the Scientific Revolution until it now is just completely accepted, without most people even realizing it. Score one for Landes.
The second claim made as to the general course of history has to do with a tendency to avoid dogma, this can most definitely be seen in a number of different time periods. First, the original humanists of Italy were the first to challenge the complete importance of religion in daily life, contending that the human experience was worth something, and that a persons life didn't have to only be a test as to said persons worthiness in the afterlife. This was the first crack in the authority of religion in the world coming out of the middle ages. Then came scientists like Copernicus, who held theories which didn't match up word for word with scripture. When they tried to spread their ideas, the Catholic Church naturally got nervous of the effects of this and the new found doubt that might be applied to all of what was said in scripture. Thus, the scientists were attempted to be silenced. Some, like Copernicus, were; Others, like Galileo, were not. From the Scientific Revolution forwards, religious authority has lessened and lessened. Finally, the English, during the Industrial Revolution, developed a nasty habit of only seeing everything around them as it's economic impact on themselves... We now call this mentality the cash nexus. When everyone is in that state of mind, dogma is non-existent. Nothing but cold hard cash has any authority over peoples decisions, for better or worse. Having those three things together happen and destroy peoples obedience to religious authority has led to a society where many more people avoid dogma as if it were a disease, then not. Landes is correct once more.
The Third piece of Landes claim has to do with an increasing in listening and watching well.The Scientific Revolutions principle of proving everything, required a standard of measuring proof; this standard came to be known as the scientific method. The scientific method is based entirely off of sensual observations. In order to prove something to somebody, you need to be able to make it noticeable to at least one of their five senses (possibly more, depending of course on the stubbornness of the person) that said thing actually exists. From this comes a need to listen and watch well in order to discover something someone else already hasn't. Then recently, with the Flattening of the world, our abilities to listen and watch the world have improved drastically with the use of the internet, and as our ability increases, so does our need. The closer we become to being able to compete directly with the entire world, the more people need to actually pay attention to who's doing what to avoid being trampled by the stampede of their future. If you don't learn to listen and watch well, in a flat world,
you will get left behind. Simply put, it truly has become more necessary to listen and watch what's going on as history has unfolded. Wow, Landes has a commanding lead over those who doubt him.There is no way to really justify "clarify Luther, and Erasmus were looking to achieve couldn't have even been close to what they did end up achieving. Luther couldn't have known and define ends, the better to choose means" as being a part of the trend of history the past six hundred years. People weren't clarifying the ends, they were simply reacting to their surroundings. The ultimate goal people like Galileo, that trying to reform some faults he found in the way the Church went about it's business would lead to it's split into hundreds of different sects, and eventually cause the downfall of religions role in society. Though, that's what his chosen means accomplished in the end. Recent history simply does not support the last piece of Landes' claim, leaving him with his first incorrect statement.
Tallying the scores Landes wins three to one; but does that mean that his analysis of the general trend of history is indeed accurate? Has the course of recent history generally followed the pattern cultivating a skeptical faith, avoiding dogma, listening and watching well, trying to clarify and define ends, the better to chose means? The answer is... yes. Undoubtedly so (as is appropriate considering how unconvincing faith is for people). He hits the pattern correctly on three of the most major, recurring themes in history since the middle ages, and even though one of his claims appears unjustified, that does not disrupt the overall legitimacy, and supportability of his claim. Landes accurately identified the pattern in past events... but what of his applying this to the future? That is the real question.
Landes didn't end at analyzing the past, he applied a lesson to be learned from that trend. We need to keep trying. Is this the big thing that need be learned from our past? Does humanity as a whole have to always be looking forward and trying to progress to the best of its ability in order to actually progress? The answer to that is... No. The flaw in this lesson is the same one behind the one piece of Landes' trend that he misinterpreted. The people that have been pushing history to today have not been able to truly see the large scale effects of what they were accomplishing in the end. Of course, most people didn't just blindly make such huge effects on the world, they were trying to accomplish a goal, but the end they sought can never truly see the scope of all the results splintering off from that. You can not create a revolution. The real revolutionary changes are the ones that will never be thought of as really happening, except from the view of a historian. So how does this apply to the future? It's simple, you can try all you want, but you are never going to truly affect the world exactly how you want to. The general trend of history is a natural occurrence, and will one way or another continue to happen whether we are "trying" to make it or not. Simply, history has a habit of writing itself much better then anyone ever could.
No comments:
Post a Comment