29 January 2021

Is Western Civilization decadent? by Luis


 

Is Western Civilization decadent?

 

The goal of this text is to sketch some ideas that might aid in discussing the question presented in the title. It is divided in two main parts. In part 1 it will be analyzed what can be meant when saying that a civilization is decadent. In part 2, possible indications of current decadence in the West will be presented.

 

1. What does it mean when we say that a civilization is decadent?

Perhaps the simplest notion of decadence consists on the idea that a certain (desirable) property gets worse over time. In a civilization, decadence could correspond to declining economic production and living standards, perceived decrease in the quality or quantity of cultural output, increased civil unrest and conflict, or a sense of moral decline (among other things).

The perceived decline might be absolute (the considered property is actually getting worse) or correspond to a decrease in the rate of improvement, below that expected.

The decline might also be relative to another civilization or to the rest of the world, if that other entity is progressing faster, so that the relative position of the civilization in question is declining over time.

 

2. Are there indications that the West is (currently) decadent?

- Economic output can be quantified relatively easily, and some relatively objective data might help grounding the discussion to some uncontroversial facts. Data from the World Bank shows that the rate of GDP growth in the West[1] has a clear declining trend since 1970. The percentage of world GDP produced in the West has also shown a clear decline, from over 60% in 1970 to 45% in 2019 (from 61 to 52% if we exclude China). GDP in the West has, however, increased during this period, so economic decadence could be observed in the growth rate or relatively to the rest of the world, rather than in absolute terms.

- A similar dynamics can be observed in demography. The population of the West was 19% of the world total in 1960, and 11% in 2019 (the population has increased but a declining rate, smaller than that of the rest of the world). The fertility rate (birth per woman), went from 3.0 in 1960 to 1.6 in 2018 (those numbers are 5.0 and 2.4 for the world as a whole). Since the fertility rate needed for a constant population is around 2.1, without migration the population of the West would have been declining since 1973.

- Cultural decadence is harder to quantify. It could be argued that current popular culture is of lower quality and less innovative than in previous times (Hollywood seems to be making mostly remakes these days, and reggaeton and trap music are arguably less complex than Rock and Roll, Blues or classical music). The proliferation of conspiracy thinking (e.g. flat-Earth, Q-Anon, anti-vaxers) and general distrust in elites and experts could also be seen as a sign of decadence.

- Regarding civil unrest, we could cite recent events in the US, as well as riots in London and Paris a few years ago. While, on the whole, the West has being rather peaceful, the rise of populist parties and social polarization might be worrying signs.

- The inability of most western countries to suppress the Covid pandemic could also be seen as a sign of decadence.

- Finally, one can often hear western intellectuals harshly criticizing Western culture (for being colonial, oppressive, racist, misogynistic etc.), while at the same time being completely non-judgmental about other cultures (this is somewhat perplexing given that in the criteria used by these intellectuals, there does not seem to have ever existed a better civilization than the West). A lack of self-confidence could be considered a form of moral decline.

 

If the idea of Western decadence is accepted, one could speculate about its causes. Postmodernism and moral relativism, colonial guilt or indolence deriving from affluence could be some candidates. Finally, one can ponder whether the West’s decline is necessarily a bad thing. If Western decline is relative and due to other parts of the world advancing faster, this could be seen as a positive and natural development.

 


 



 

 




[1]Considered here as USA, EU, Canada, Australia and New Zealand

 

28 January 2021

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 31st January: Is Western culture decadent?

 Note: Luis has prepared an essay for us

Is Western Civilization decadent?

https://www.philomadrid.com/2021/01/is-western-civilization-decadent.html

 

 

Dear Friends,

This Sunday we are discussing: Is Western culture decadent?

The topic was proposed by Luis and in my essay I argue that the issue is
first and foremost a language problem.

Is Western culture decadent?
https://www.philomadrid.com/2021/01/is-western-culture-decadent.html

In the meantime you can link to the current news and notices here:
https://www.philomadrid.com/2020/10/news-and-notices.html

-Alfonso has a new website and he gave us link to his latest book of
poems: Después

-Oscar's book on his reflections on COVID-19 is still available

-David J. Butler has published a new book "Absent Friends" regarding the
Cementerio Británico in Madrid

Finally if you have problems with Skype try launching it again if you
have the App or browser. Send me a message for the link.


Best and take care
Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com


PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 31st January: Is Western culture
decadent?

Is Western culture decadent?

 Note: Luis has prepared an essay for us

Is Western Civilization decadent?

https://www.philomadrid.com/2021/01/is-western-civilization-decadent.html

 

 

 

Is Western culture decadent?  

Topic by Luis

Essay by Lawrence

 

 

Houston: we have a problem….a language problem!

 

Decadent has two current meanings. In common parlance, decadent “is characterized by or appealing to self-indulgence.” (1). And in political philosophy we can easily adopt the definition by Friedrich Nietzsche (2): The notion " decadence ": Decay, decline, and waste, are, per se, in no way open to objection; they are the natural consequences of life and vital growth.

 

And that is the language problem. If we accept that decadent means self indulgence, and by definition wasteful, then surely when a society declines the scope for decadence would be limited and curtailed. Indeed, Nietzsche seems to disagree that “vice, illness, crime, prostitution, and poverty” can be halted and improved: he even argues that “a society is not at liberty to remain young.” Put differently, when society fully declines it ceases to be decadent.

 

Are we to understand, therefore, that this inevitable decline of society will lead us to somewhere between Dante’s Hell and The Garden of Earthly Delights by Bosch? This idea of the inevitable decline is not a strange idea as we all know. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics echoes this sentiment: for example the entry in the LibreTexts (3) says “….entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase over time.” Indeed the authors of this entry go on and ask “Why do we get older and never younger?” The same idea is also reflected in the Economics principle of diminishing returns.

 

But there is a flaw in Nietzsche’s argument about society (Western or not) specifically the idea of “a society is not at liberty to remain young.” If decadence is not a thing (Nietzsche), society (culture) is not a thing either. Society is an amalgam of people “more or less” being bound by common history, laws, in many cases a common language, collective wealth and so on. Is our idea of the meaning of society a categorical mistake? Something extracted to exist from something that does exist: Gilbert Ryle used this argument against Cartesian mind-body duality.

 

The idea of society being an amalgam of people does not qualify society to be a closed system within the meaning of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics for the basic reason that “people” in a society change. They change in the sense that some die, some are born, a few migrate, others from outside join society, some leave, and so. A society is a dynamic system even if we accept that all societies will disappear when the universe evolves into a big crunch.

 

The inevitability of a declining society happens because of many factors, for example war, enemy occupation, natural disasters, fraud, ignorance, and so on. People change, and therefore we might argue that yesterday’s society is not the same as today’s society.  But the circumstances or the binding factors mentioned above not only change, but have a direct causal effects on the people. Hence what is the meaning of the word/concept society? Is German society in 2021 (strictly 2019 to exclude the Covid factor) the same as in 1938?

 

The German society of 1938 was on an economic high at the time with military productivity but culturally drunk on the racism and aggression of National Socialism (NS). This society, however, led to a decadent decline much worse than a Bosch nightmare. In 2019 Germany was one of the top five economies in the world and the then Chancellor made it official policy to welcome political and economic refugees to the country. I use the German case as an example to argue that a society can come back into civilization after living in the depths of political hell: the irony is not lost that Nietzsche was German.

 

So if decadent decline of a society is not a necessary condition of a society why do we get the feeling of “wallowing in self- contempt and depression”? (Nietzsche) Abuse and injustice in a society are neither necessary nor sufficient conditions of wonton self-indulgence and decline. Abuse and injustice do not affect society but they affect real people and real individuals.

 

If western decadence is making us depressed, this quote from the Oxfam 2021 report is not going to help: “The world’s ten richest men have seen their combined wealth increase by half a trillion dollars since the pandemic began —more than enough to pay for a COVID-19 vaccine for everyone and to ensure no one is pushed into poverty by the pandemic.”(4) And in 2020 the NGO reported (5), “In 2019, the world’s billionaires, only 2,153 people, had more wealth than 4.6 billion people.”

 

The decadence of western society (or societies) cannot just be attributed to the inevitable process of getting old. The German case demonstrates that the destruction of a society both as a group and as individuals can make a comeback from the worst nightmare. But the Germans could not have achieved this return without the cooperation of friends, allies and trade partners. Somehow, therefore, the idea that society is some enclosed system is not completely correct; it may be argues that a dynamic system can safely exist despite being a subset of a chaotic system. The only caveat is that there is so much we can do against natural disasters.

 

As I have argued abuse and injustice are not conditions of decadence; they are behaviours by a few people who are tolerated by those whose duty it is to prevent society degenerating into hell. What the Oxfam reports imply, especially the 2021 report, is that some of the money owned by billionaires is the result of excessive profiteering at the cost of society and the people who work for them.

 

We can safely argue that although Nietzsche was vindicated about inevitable decadence by concepts in science, 2nd Law of dynamics, and economics his idea of a society is not a closed system but rather a dynamic system. To think that society is an entity independent of the people is to commit a categorical mistake. What is clear is that neither Nietzsche nor his contemporary socialists could imagine that a society of 2,153 people had more wealth than 4.6 billion people: we cannot imagine it in the 21st century.

 

To conclude and until proven otherwise, change is not decadence; decadence is a handful of people that inflict decline on society. In other words, people cause decadence on people.

 

 

Best Lawrence

 

 

(1)  Merriam-Webster

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/decadent

(2) The Will to Power

by Friedrich Nietzsche, translated by Anthony M. Ludovici

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Power

(3) The LibreTexts

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

https://tinyurl.com/LibreTexts-2ndLaw (Link shortened because it is too long)

(4) Mega-rich recoup COVID-losses in record-time yet billions will live in poverty for at least a decade - Oxfam

https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/mega-rich-recoup-covid-losses-record-time-yet-billions-will-live-poverty-least

(5) Time to care - Oxfam

https://www.oxfam.org/en/research/time-care

(6) Ghost in the machine

Psychology Wiki

https://psychology.wikia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_machine#Origin_of_Cartesian_category_mistake

 

 

 

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

http://www.philomadrid.com

 

 

21 January 2021

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 24th January: Converting information into knowledge

Dear Friends,

This Sunday we are discussing: Converting information into knowledge.

Our topic was proposed by Mariona and it reflects two key issues in
philosophy and beyond. In my essay I try to identify some of the issues
that are involved in the subject:
Converting information into knowledge
https://www.philomadrid.com/2021/01/converting-information-into-knowledge.html

In the meantime you can link to the current news and notices here:
https://www.philomadrid.com/2020/10/news-and-notices.html

-Alfonso has a new website and he gave us link to his latest book of
poems: Después

-Oscar's book on his reflections on COVID-19 is still available

-David J. Butler has published a new book "Absent Friends" regarding the
Cementerio Británico in Madrid

Finally if you have problems with Skype try launching it again if you
have the App or browser. Send me a message for the link.


Best and take care
Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com


PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 24th January: Converting information
into knowledge

Converting information into knowledge

 

Converting information into knowledge

 

Topic by Mariona

Essay by Lawrence

 

This is a very specific issue which could easily be deceptive, and maybe even lead us into the rabbit hole of philosophical debate of what is knowledge and information. There is no doubt that sooner or later we need to have some sort of definition of what knowledge is.

 

So the question for us is not “what is the difference between information and knowledge”, but rather what must happen to information to become knowledge. And are we justified to assume that information can be converted into knowledge? We can also understand “convert” as a causal action conversion. For example: converting flour, yeast, water, heat, time, and salt into bread. But the problem with this example is that we don’t have a single ingredient but an amalgam of identifiable ingredients coming together which at the end of the process we call bread.

 

On the website, Key Differences (1), information is defined as filtered data and knowledge as being able to filter information relevant to the subject. Alternatively information is the building blocks and knowledge the building. In our bread example, the causal conversion test is our ability to know what the ingredients for making bread are and then mixing those ingredients (building blocks) to convert them into bread.

 

But in my bread making example the “information” I gave is far from being the building blocks that are really required for bread making. This example is a language exercise to represent at a certain vague level of “understanding” the bread making process. This highlights a necessary condition in our debate, that the natural language we use to convert our information into knowledge must be precise information. Precision calls for accuracy which means that “information” (ingredients, building blocks) must be measured and measurable, thus introducing the need for a system to do the job of measuring; mathematics can take us a long way to help us convert information into knowledge.

 

Before we can convert information into knowledge we also have to breach the natural language barrier in the spirit of Ludwig Wittgenstein idea of family resemblance (check Wikipedia:family resemblance). Wittgenstein attributes our errors when using natural languages to failing to be critical about our use of language. This is important for us because information is usually presented to us in natural language format: Gran Via, 2 litres, flour, heat, 300 people, sample population, and so on.  So when we use such terms as flour, yeast and so on such terms refer to different things in different places. And there are many local reasons why they are different but what is certain is that many times recipes do not always turn out well in different countries. This fits very well with the idea of family resemblance issue and I speak from experience.

 

We can certainly argue that data is raw and in a sense objective; in the meantime let us not get involved that the data might be wrong. But our idea of knowledge is that when we speak of knowledge we are speaking of something that can be crowned as universal, and a feature of something universal is that it is repeatable. When we say something like “I know that Calle Fuencarral is corner with Gran Via” we are using “I know” to suggest that you are wrong if you suggest otherwise and not to confirm that I have a justifiable true belief.

 

The problem is not that knowledge may or may not be universalisable, but rather the content of the information has no family resemblance to the content when we still use the same language label for example flour. No matter how much we try to specify the label (word/name) at our macroscopic level there are subtle differences which will make flour bought in Munich different from the one bought in Madrid. Of course, the reason why I cannot make bread in Madrid might have nothing to do with the flour but maybe my oven which is not sufficiently hot for bread making! This leaves us with an element of uncertainty and bringing into doubt the universal element of knowledge.

 

Now compare the difference between my information about bread making (recipe) which was successful in London but not Madrid, and the periodic table of elements. The elements are more precise and supposedly more reliable than say generic language labels. But would we still be able make bread if we used the language of the elements rather than the traditional language of flour, yeast, and water? The romantics and traditionalists amongst us would be justified in wanting to know “how can we make traditional bread by using measurements of chemical elements?”

 

So far I have been discussing the ideas of knowledge and information in a material empirical context: Gran Via, flour, water etc. But are there other forms of information and knowledge that are not empirical but still require a causal effect to convert information into knowledge? Morality and jurisprudence come to mind, but I also want to suggest that even natural languages are subject to this conversion debate.

 

The Wittgenstein family resemblance debate requires that such languages have some common factors for them to avoid errors. The problem as I have tried to argue is that local conditions determine the meaning of local concept words in the local natural language. This can have devastating effects with translations and interpretation between languages. In a translation process the original text is the information and the target language text is the resulting knowledge. The problem is not with basic instruction texts, e.g. how to use a new oven, but conceptual texts, for example philosophical or literature texts. How serious is this problem for us?

 

We can add another example on how we can create errors in our knowledge due to deficiencies on natural languages. Let’s take the example: Do you speak English? (It could be any language) We might even ask what’s you level of English? These two questions can easily be translated into other languages, but these two questions do not give us any real knowledge about the language skills of the person. If we were to ask someone in the street whether they spoke English and they said “yes”, we would be justified to ask them where the 44 bus stop is in Gran Via. But is a “yes” enough to assume we can discuss such things as the importance of language in philosophy.

 

Probably we’re not justified to assume they can discuss philosophy. This is because to discuss philosophy we require a different kind of “yes.  Specifically: can you discuss philosophy in English? My point is that if knowledge is dependent on being presented in a natural language by definition we need a relational and relevant context to perform this task. Traditional language teaching and maybe mathematics for example can be learnt in an abstract context but this is unnatural for speakers of a natural language.

 

Physical systems or dynamic systems do change and mathematicians have studied these changes in catastrophe theory (but not exclusively). I am not interested in the mathematics of the theory but in the idea that small changes in a system can lead to drastic changes (catastrophe) that may convert the system to something else. What is important for us is that we have the conceptual means to measure these small changes and thus the change from one system to another. And then when these changes happen we tend to create a language reference or label to describe the new system. The classical example is a slice of bread converted into a toast. At what point does the slice of bread become toast?

 

In our discussion, is there a series of small changes that will eventually convert our information into knowledge? We can argue that the change from information to knowledge happens when we add more relevant information and use pre knowledge we might have acquired previously to bring about the outcome we desire. In effect not only is information converted into knowledge but also knowledge itself gives rise to new natural language concepts. For example a slice of bread and a toast: these two concepts are not the same, when we order a toast we don’t expect a soft slice of bread.

 

What is evident is that although we can move along the causal chain from data to information to knowledge, this chain will break when either the data or information change. And as a consequence knowledge will lose its aura of universalizability. I have not discussed wisdom because this is a slave to a stable knowledge base.

 

Best Lawrence

 

(1) Difference Between Information and Knowledge

https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-information-and-knowledge.html

 

 

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

 

Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

 

http://www.philomadrid.com

 

14 January 2021

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 17th January: Evaluating the past (cont),

Dear Friends,

This Sunday we are continuing with the topic: "Evaluating the past"
proposed by Norma.

Two questions Sara proposed in the context of our topic for this Sunday are:
1) Do people learn over time?
2) The need to believe we are doing tight?

Essay by Lawrence:

Evaluating the past
https://www.philomadrid.com/2021/01/evaluating-past.html


In the meantime you can link to the current news and notices here:
https://www.philomadrid.com/2020/10/news-and-notices.html

-Alfonso has a new website and he gave us link to his latest book of
poems: Después

-Oscar's book on his reflections on COVID-19 is still available

-David J. Butler has published a new book "Absent Friends" regarding the
Cementerio Británico in Madrid

Finally if you have problems with Skype try launching it again if you
have the App or browser. Send me a message for the link.


Best and take care
Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 17th January: Evaluating the past (cont)

07 January 2021

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 10th January: Evaluating the past

Dear Friends,

This Sunday we are discussing: Evaluating the past

It is quite ironic that we should discuss this topic after seeing the
outrageous events in the US capital. In my very short essay I consider
the moral issues of our topic that was proposed by Norma.

Essay by Lawrence:

Evaluating the past
https://www.philomadrid.com/2021/01/evaluating-past.html


In the meantime you can link to the current news and notices here:
https://www.philomadrid.com/2020/10/news-and-notices.html

-Alfonso has a new website and he gave us link to his latest book of
poems: Después

-Oscar's book on his reflections on COVID-19 is still available

-David J. Butler has published a new book "Absent Friends" regarding the
Cementerio Británico in Madrid

Finally if you have problems with Skype try launching it again if you
have the App or browser. Send me a message for the link.


Best and take care
Lawrence

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813
Email: philomadrid@gmail.com
http://www.philomadrid.com

PhiloMadrid on Skype 6:30pm Sunday 10th January: Evaluating the past

Evaluating the past

 

Evaluating the past.

Topic by Norma

 

Essay by Lawrence

 

 

Second guessing history can always be a dangerous and futile task. Second guessing history can easily hurt us more than it changes history. Evaluating the past means making a judgement about the value of historical events. Of course, judgements maybe of technical facts, for example by considering issues based on knowledge at the time, but with the hindsight of knowledge we have today, or judgements based on moral standards of today.

 

Of course, we can hardly condemn people for their mistakes if the “knowledge” for them to know did not exist at the time. Indeed, progress has always been achieved by discovering solutions for past mistakes. But we are more concerned on moral value judgements.

 

But there is an immediate problem with making moral judgements about events and people in history. We just don’t know what it was like to live at the period we are making the judgements about. Don’t forget that many of the documentaries we see on TV purporting to tell us what it was like to live in this or that period is part entertainment and part a narrative of what we know about said period. But we can never be a Roman soldier or a rich woman in Rome during the Roman Empire no matter how much we read about it.

 

The standard “what it was like…..?” must surely mean we have lived in the relevant period. Elderly people understand this principle because they keep reminding us that things were different in their time. And yes cakes and ice cream were better in the past.

 

Hence, judging the past by our moral standards is futile and as I said dangerous. Futile because we’re not going to change history and dangerous because we are manipulating history to fit our beliefs, which may very well be unsound. Manipulating history to justify our beliefs will never be valid for our context.

 

An equally serious problem is the belief that moral principles and ethical systems are universal. This has been the domain of the various religions that have existed over the centuries. But more recently, 17th century onwards, philosophy has been employed to rehash the same old ideas into more sophisticated language: do we really want a masochist psychopath wishing to do onto others as he or she wants others to do to them?

 

In effect we cannot morally judge past people and past events precisely because there are no universal principles: moral principles keep changing as we change and evolve. But we can do one better than judging the past, we can learn from the past. In a previous essay I mentioned the Great Plague of London; the consequence of this epidemic was that the rich fled the capital and left the poor to fend for themselves.

 

We can all understand fear and self preservation, but our task is not to condemn the rich of the time, but to make sure that the rich of the present do not abandon the poor of today. And we are failing because those in power and authority in London are today not holding contractors to account when they misappropriating state money destined for medical. And even today we have the technology to control an epidemic as serious as the plague itself, by those in power in London want to deviate from the recommended protocol to administer such vaccines. This is a collapse of all sense of morality because the manufacturer of the vaccines and medical experts strongly advice not to break the protocol.

 

I use London as an example of a city in the world, but also a specific example of verifiable historical facts.

 

Indeed, what the present pandemic shows us is that moral principles are not established by some a priori fancy thinking but by solid scientific thinking. Today we have the scientific knowledge and the industrial capacity to vaccinate 70% of the world population against the Coronavirus over the next twelve months.

 

In effect we cannot change the past but we can certainly learn from the past. And one practical principle we have learnt is that for example universal health care is important in the 21st century basically because no country is fully isolated. But failure to provide a universal healthcare service would certainly be a failure of today’s moral principles.

 

Best Lawrence

 

telephone/WhatsApp: 606081813

Email: philomadrid@gmail.com

http://www.philomadrid.com