|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
coffee
Joined: 10 Jul 2010
|
 Posted: Wed Aug 18, 2010 10:51 pm Post subject: optimism vs ..... |
 |
|
| things usually get better? Dont they? This goes for the "state" of the world. Relativism is a .... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| That's a broad question. But in brief, only liberals and people who can't see past their gadgets think the world has improved since e.g. 1950 [I would like to turn the clock back way, way further]. I just read the Unabomber Manifesto - he was sound on decline. Look at these: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 12:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| That's a broad question. But in brief, only liberals and people who can't see past their gadgets think the world has improved since e.g. 1950 [I would like to turn the clock back way, way further]. I just read the Unabomber Manifesto - he was sound on decline. Look at these: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/ |
Improved quality of life and length of life along with the end of the cold war argue otherwise. Plus I dig the new technology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 2:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| That's a broad question. But in brief, only liberals and people who can't see past their gadgets think the world has improved since e.g. 1950 [I would like to turn the clock back way, way further]. I just read the Unabomber Manifesto - he was sound on decline. Look at these: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/ |
Improved quality of life and length of life along with the end of the cold war argue otherwise. Plus I dig the new technology. |
If I thought those things are what count, I would agree with you. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| That's a broad question. But in brief, only liberals and people who can't see past their gadgets think the world has improved since e.g. 1950 [I would like to turn the clock back way, way further]. I just read the Unabomber Manifesto - he was sound on decline. Look at these: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/ |
My initial reaction would be, taken as a totality, life and the world have remained constant, neither declining nor improving. Though, if you look at any one single parameter by itself, it will either by a step forwards or backwards.
I'm curious though, how (and if you can--why) do you think the world is in decline? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| That's a broad question. But in brief, only liberals and people who can't see past their gadgets think the world has improved since e.g. 1950 [I would like to turn the clock back way, way further]. I just read the Unabomber Manifesto - he was sound on decline. Look at these: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/ |
Improved quality of life and length of life along with the end of the cold war argue otherwise. Plus I dig the new technology. |
If I thought those things are what count, I would agree with you. |
What do you think count? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 5:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Humans have been doing much better in the past 12,500 years than the 1,2 million years before that. And much better in the past 500 years than in the previous 12,000. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 7:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
| That's a broad question. But in brief, only liberals and people who can't see past their gadgets think the world has improved since e.g. 1950 [I would like to turn the clock back way, way further]. I just read the Unabomber Manifesto - he was sound on decline. Look at these: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/ |
My initial reaction would be, taken as a totality, life and the world have remained constant, neither declining nor improving. Though, if you look at any one single parameter by itself, it will either by a step forwards or backwards.
I'm curious though, how (and if you can--why) do you think the world is in decline? |
It feels like this is all I talk about these days. I was first 'initiated' into the mystery of decline by my liking for older music, and I still think that modern music, popular and serious, is the most unmistakable 'sign of the times'. But one either intuits this or one doesn't. I think, for now, that's all I want to say. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
It feels like this is all I talk about these days. I was first 'initiated' into the mystery of decline by my liking for older music, and I still think that modern music, popular and serious, is the most unmistakable 'sign of the times'. But one either intuits this or one doesn't. I think, for now, that's all I want to say. |
While I'm sure you have more complex reasons for holding your opinion, let's talk about music. I am by no means an authority on music, but it seems that that is one area that, while not declining, has at least stayed consistent.
Unfortunately, although you seem adverse to technology, I must call upon it in my reply. We live in an era where one can just load up Google or Itunes and access almost any song or piece of music in history. At no time were people more able to find music that suites their particular tastes; be it an obscure genre, or a truly classical work, it's all at a person's fingertips.
Also, these resources are available to an ever increasing number of people. How many people had access to music that they themselves did not produce prior to the 20th century? Almost none.
There are no shortage of people nowadays making all kinds of music tailored to all kinds of tastes. Whether it be Chorus's from Greek tragedy, medieval love/hero ballads, classic orchestral pieces, or something modern, there is guaranteed someone out there who appreciates, plays, and produces new works of that genre. Technology allows you to interact with any kind of musician and enjoy their work. Before, you were limited to what was popular or fashionable in your immediate time and vicinity.
Don't take this as some sort of 'ode to technology.' I am more than aware of the disadvantages of technology as well as the disadvantages of having quick access to information.
The only way to tell whether music is truly good or bad in the subjective sense is to compare it with other music. At no time have we had a bigger basis for comparison. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Re: music. I don't have a lot to add. But I did notice a small blurb online about a music critic complaining about the YouTube attention grabbing music culture. Quality is stifled by those artists just grabbing the most hits or views. The internet has primarily been good for music in providing an end-around the recording companies. But as a breeding ground for good, popular musicians, at least one expert thinks the internet is a massive failure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LGSakers
Joined: 23 Jul 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 19, 2010 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think life has been pretty much the same. Yes, we live longer... But at what cost? To live in a wheelchair and on medication? I am aware some people can live long and healthy lives... But the reality is that most of Western culture is drugged up it's amazing we aren't simply made of plastic by the time we hit 80.
However, I look at each day as different, and in that sense life does improve. You could lose a loved one or break a leg, have a heartattack or lose a limb, be diagnosed with cancer or lose your home. It all comes one day at a time, and each day is it's own journey.
Just my take. And yes, it does apply to the world scale. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
It feels like this is all I talk about these days. I was first 'initiated' into the mystery of decline by my liking for older music, and I still think that modern music, popular and serious, is the most unmistakable 'sign of the times'. But one either intuits this or one doesn't. I think, for now, that's all I want to say. |
While I'm sure you have more complex reasons for holding your opinion, let's talk about music. I am by no means an authority on music, but it seems that that is one area that, while not declining, has at least stayed consistent.
Unfortunately, although you seem adverse to technology, I must call upon it in my reply. We live in an era where one can just load up Google or Itunes and access almost any song or piece of music in history. At no time were people more able to find music that suites their particular tastes; be it an obscure genre, or a truly classical work, it's all at a person's fingertips.
Also, these resources are available to an ever increasing number of people. How many people had access to music that they themselves did not produce prior to the 20th century? Almost none.
There are no shortage of people nowadays making all kinds of music tailored to all kinds of tastes. Whether it be Chorus's from Greek tragedy, medieval love/hero ballads, classic orchestral pieces, or something modern, there is guaranteed someone out there who appreciates, plays, and produces new works of that genre. Technology allows you to interact with any kind of musician and enjoy their work. Before, you were limited to what was popular or fashionable in your immediate time and vicinity.
Don't take this as some sort of 'ode to technology.' I am more than aware of the disadvantages of technology as well as the disadvantages of having quick access to information.
The only way to tell whether music is truly good or bad in the subjective sense is to compare it with other music. At no time have we had a bigger basis for comparison. |
Again, if I valued individualism and free choice I would agree with you. But to me those things just say "rootless, empty, dead, mechanical, unfree". So pointing out the fractured nature of our musical culture only convinces me further that I'm right, and construing being born into a wholistic culture as limiting is perverse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Patrick Bateman
Joined: 21 Apr 2009
Location: Lost in Translation
|
| Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2010 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Koveras wrote: |
Again, if I valued individualism and free choice I would agree with you. But to me those things just say "rootless, empty, dead, mechanical, unfree". So pointing out the fractured nature of our musical culture only convinces me further that I'm right, and construing being born into a wholistic culture as limiting is perverse. |
Strictly speaking about music, I fail to see how individualism and free choice are bad. It seems counterintuitive to expect music to stick to routine and norms and exist solely as a singular, homogenous group. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Koveras
Joined: 09 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Patrick Bateman wrote: |
| Koveras wrote: |
Again, if I valued individualism and free choice I would agree with you. But to me those things just say "rootless, empty, dead, mechanical, unfree". So pointing out the fractured nature of our musical culture only convinces me further that I'm right, and construing being born into a wholistic culture as limiting is perverse. |
Strictly speaking about music, I fail to see how individualism and free choice are bad. It seems counterintuitive to expect music to stick to routine and norms and exist solely as a singular, homogenous group. |
When music becomes a matter of personal preference (and I mean this in two closely interrelated ways: first that a once wholistic musical culture fractures, and second that it loses its contact with principles superior to the contingent culture-bound form in which they were presented), as is the case today, it is no longer an essential, functional part of life, but a triflingl matter of entertainment and aesthetics. (This is not to say that "essential, functional" music isn't entertaining or aesthetic - if anything it can be more so than music today - but just that it isn't *merely* so.) A bit like our arguing here: trivial, probably fruitless, but pursued because we have to occupy ourselves somehow and to people like us this is better than watching TV. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
