Thank you for this history lesson! You ask interesting questions. I'm always wary of the noble savage infatuation that seems to have infected the anti-West movement, and shudder at the thought of a world where the Enlightenment never happened. That said, as time goes on, I love animals more and more and people (at least groups of them) less and less.
I agree about the dangerous tendency to romanticize the Noble Savage, especially in recent years. I’m deeply ambivalent about the statement from Anacharsis because I don’t think it translates to humans (not to say that was its intention). We can't build a healthy, functioning society without laws—not one with more than a handful of members. But I also think "civilizations" have shown the occasional tendency to go too far in the other direction in codifying their ideals to the point of subverting free will.
I think there is a point at which the ever-evolving refinements of a culture can turn back upon it and become a net negative. Where the sublimation or extinction of our natures—and common sense—can reach absurd, unnatural, or unworkable proportions. Where the very instruments of Enlightenment or classical liberalism can be used to unmake themselves. I think it could be argued we’re living in that zone now.
There is a quote from Herodotus I was going to post sometime soon that is kind of related to this idea: "Delicate men spring from delicate countries." The ancient Greeks probably saw such moments in their long history, and I can imagine them employing some “Scythian Discourse” to criticize the sort of society they had become. A little civilization is a necessity, but can too much become a liability? Anyway, it’s one of the themes I explore in the books because it’s one of the things I think about a lot with regard to the present state of the West. Have we, in all our sophistication and indulgence, become too delicate, cosseted, tame? Are there real consequences to this?
As far as human nature goes, I wonder sometimes if we aren’t just what we're evolved to be. There are wild and domesticated animals, but there is no such thing as a “wild” human. Sure, there are degrees of cultural complexity and rural vs urban arrangements. But we’re all members of the cultured species and the only way we’re able to survive is by shared knowledge, tools, and cooperation. Whatever human nature means, it means being domesticated and cultured to some degree. None of us could survive on our own as wild or even feral creatures.
Having said that, I also generally prefer animals to people, and have probably spent more of my time with horses and dogs than humans. I don’t regret it :-)
I love the Herodotus quote, if only it weren't so prescient. You hit the big gong of truth here in this entire comment, which itself would make a timely essay. I don't disagree with a thing.
Thank you for this history lesson! You ask interesting questions. I'm always wary of the noble savage infatuation that seems to have infected the anti-West movement, and shudder at the thought of a world where the Enlightenment never happened. That said, as time goes on, I love animals more and more and people (at least groups of them) less and less.
Hi Ryan, thanks for your comment!
I agree about the dangerous tendency to romanticize the Noble Savage, especially in recent years. I’m deeply ambivalent about the statement from Anacharsis because I don’t think it translates to humans (not to say that was its intention). We can't build a healthy, functioning society without laws—not one with more than a handful of members. But I also think "civilizations" have shown the occasional tendency to go too far in the other direction in codifying their ideals to the point of subverting free will.
I think there is a point at which the ever-evolving refinements of a culture can turn back upon it and become a net negative. Where the sublimation or extinction of our natures—and common sense—can reach absurd, unnatural, or unworkable proportions. Where the very instruments of Enlightenment or classical liberalism can be used to unmake themselves. I think it could be argued we’re living in that zone now.
There is a quote from Herodotus I was going to post sometime soon that is kind of related to this idea: "Delicate men spring from delicate countries." The ancient Greeks probably saw such moments in their long history, and I can imagine them employing some “Scythian Discourse” to criticize the sort of society they had become. A little civilization is a necessity, but can too much become a liability? Anyway, it’s one of the themes I explore in the books because it’s one of the things I think about a lot with regard to the present state of the West. Have we, in all our sophistication and indulgence, become too delicate, cosseted, tame? Are there real consequences to this?
As far as human nature goes, I wonder sometimes if we aren’t just what we're evolved to be. There are wild and domesticated animals, but there is no such thing as a “wild” human. Sure, there are degrees of cultural complexity and rural vs urban arrangements. But we’re all members of the cultured species and the only way we’re able to survive is by shared knowledge, tools, and cooperation. Whatever human nature means, it means being domesticated and cultured to some degree. None of us could survive on our own as wild or even feral creatures.
Having said that, I also generally prefer animals to people, and have probably spent more of my time with horses and dogs than humans. I don’t regret it :-)
I love the Herodotus quote, if only it weren't so prescient. You hit the big gong of truth here in this entire comment, which itself would make a timely essay. I don't disagree with a thing.
thanks, i'm glad this makes sense to someone else. it gives me hope maybe the world hasn't gone entirely insane ;-)